IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 
 . 
 . 
 . 
   ITA 602/2012  
 . 
 . 
 . 
 DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX        ..... Appellant 
 . 
 Through Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, sr. standing counsel with Ms. Gayatri 
 Verma, Adv. 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 versus 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 NATIONAL PETROLEUM CONSTRUCTION 
 . 
 COMPANY          ..... Respondent 
 . 
 Through 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 CORAM: 
 . 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT 
 . 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 O R D E R 
 . 
     16.10.2012 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 In the present case the revenue claims to be aggrieved by an order 
 dated 18.11.2011 in ITA No.4106/Del/2011. 
 . 
 2. The assessment which originally was framed under Section 143 of the 
 Income Tax Act, 1961 (?Act?, for short) was sought to be reopened under 
 Section 147/148.  The reopening of assessment was sought to be questioned 
 and the assessee approached the Uttarakhand High Court in writ petition 
 . 
 No.2192/2009; the writ petition was allowed and it was held that the notice dated 31.3.2009 issued under Section 148 was not valid.  The final 
 observations of the Uttarakhand High Court in this regard are as follows 
 : 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 ?40. For the reasons stated above, the notice dated 31st March, 2009 
 issued under Section 148 of the Act does not comply with proviso to 
 Section 147 of the Act. The reasons recorded does not indicate that the 
 assessee has failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts 
 necessary for the assessment. Consequently, the notice issued under 
 Section 148 of the Act cannot be sustained and is quashed. The 
 proceedings initiated in pursuance of the notice under Section 148 of the 
 Act are wholly illegal and without jurisdiction and cannot be executed 
 since the final assessment order and the notice of demand under Section 
 156 of the Act was issued in gross violation of the interim order of this 
 court. The same is a nullity in the eyes of law and cannot be enforced. 
 The writ petition is accordingly allowed. In the circumstances of the 
 case, the parties shall bear their own cost.? 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 3. Since the framing of the assessment and consequently proceedings 
 have not been stayed, however, the assessment proceedings continued 
 despite the pendency of the writ petition.  They culminated in the 
 reassessment order dated 29.10.2010 which was adverse to the assessee. 
 It approached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (?Tribunal?, for short) 
 which by the impugned order set aside the reassessment order.  The 
 Tribunal?s order is dated 18.11.2011.  The order of 20.8.2011 expressly 
 noticed the judgment of the Uttarakhand High Court.  Ld. counsel for the 
 revenue contends that he has no instructions as to whether an appeal has 
 been preferred against the order dated 20.8.2011 of the Single Judge of 
 the Uttarakhand High Court. 
 . 
 4. This Court is of the opinion that the grievance of the revenue 
 cannot be entertained.  The initiation of proceedings under Section 148 
 itself was held to be illegal and the consequent proceedings were 
 quashed.  In these circumstances, the further finalization of the 
 reassessment proceedings and the consequent grievance of the 
 appellant/revenue, in respect of the Tribunal?s order cannot be gone 
 into.  At the same time, the standing counsel is unaware as to whether an 
 appeal has been filed.  If the order dated 20.8.2011 is for some reason 
 set aside, the revenue may move this Court in appropriate proceedings for 
 revival of this appeal. 
 . 
 The appeal is accordingly dismissed but with liberty as mentioned 
 above. 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 R.V.EASWAR, J 
 . 
 OCTOBER 16, 2012 
 . 
 vld 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 $ 9 
 . 
 . 
 .