COMUNIDADO OF CHICALIM Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Under appeal by special leave is an order of a Division Bench of the High Court at Bombay, sitting at Panaji. By that order the writ petition filed by the appellant was summarily dismissed.

(2.) By the writ petition the appellant challenged the validity of a notice issued to it by the first respondent under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The notice alleged that the first respondent had reason to believe that the appellant's income chargeable to tax for the assessment year 1986-87 had escaped assessment and that, therefore, the first respondent proposed to assess the appellant's income for that assessment year. It was averred in the writ petition that the first respondent had failed to disclose the reasons that he was obliged to record under Section 148 (2) for reopening the assessment. Further, the writ petition averred that the respondents had already issued a notice to the appellant under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the same assessment year and that the appellant had, in compliance therewith, filed a return. It was asserted that, therefore, the second notice under Section 148 did not lie.

(3.) The Division Bench took the view that Section 148 merely required that reasons should be recorded, not that they should be communicated. Since, therefore, there was, in its view, no failure to perform a statutory duty it could not call for and examine the reasons. As to the ground in relation to the previous notice, the Division Bench noted that it had not been asserted in the writ petition that the Income Tax authority had made an assessment pursuant to the previous notice. It observed that the appellant had submitted to the jurisdiction of the authority under Section 148 and, therefore, "acquiesced off the grievance".