RATNACHUDAMANI S UTNAL Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, questioning the legality and validity of the impugned notices dt. 17th Oct. , 2000, vide Annexs. A and B, has presented these writ petitions.

(2.) THE grievance of the petitioner as made out by the learned counsel for the petitioner in these writ petitions is that, the petitioner is an income-tax assessee; he is submitting his IT returns every year and he has submitted his IT returns for the years 1998-1999 and 1999-2000. Be that as it may, to the shock and surprise to the petitioner, he had received two notices dt. 17th Oct. , 2000, from the ITO, Ward No. 1 Bijapur, under Section 148 of the IT Act, 1961, alleging that income of the petitioner in respect of the aforesaid two assessment years has escaped assessments within the meaning of Section 147 of the IT Act, and also calling upon him to submit additional return in the prescribed form in respect of his income for the aforesaid two assessment years. The said impugned notices are alleged to have been issued in the proceedings initiated under Sections 148 and 147 of the IT Act, 1961. Assailing the correctness of the said notices, the petitioner has presented these writ petitions.

(3.) THE principal submission canvassed by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner is that, the impugned notices issued by the respondent are illegal and arbitrary and they are not in consonance with the mandatory provision of Section 148 of the IT Act. Further, he submitted that, in the impugned notices, the respondent has not assigned any reasons for reopening the case for the asst. yrs. 1998-1999 and 1999-2000. To substantiate his submission, he placed reliance on the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Arjun Singh and Anr. v. Asstt. Director of IT (Inv.) and Ors. [2000 ]246 ITR363 (MP ) and also on the judgment of Gujarat High Court in the case Birla VXL Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [1996 ]217 ITR1 (Guj ) and submitted that, "the mandatory requirement which is necessary for assuming jurisdiction is that the AO shall record his reasons for issuing notice. In a case where the notice was issued, the reasons must be recorded and disclosed to the assessee to give reply to the impugned notice issued by the IT authorities". No reason as such has been assigned in the impugned notices and the notices have been issued in the printed proforma under Section 148 of the IT Act, Therefore, he submitted that the proceedings initiated and the notices issued by the respondent is one without authority of law and as such, they are liable to be set aside.