K M SHARMA Vs. I T O

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the notices under Sections 148 & 142 of the Income Tax Act issued to the petitioner relevant to the assessment years 1968-69 to 1971-72, 1981-82 and 1982-83.

(2.) Lands measuring about 4200 bighas was acquired by the then Chief Commissioner of Delhi by Notification dated 6.3.1966 and 6.9.1966 issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. By judgment dated 20.5:1980 the then Additional District Judge held the petitioner to be entitled I /3rd share of the compensation awarded under the awards. As a consequence thereof the petitioner received a compensation of Rs. 1,33,810.00 . On a reference application filed by the petitioner under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act the Additional District Judge, Delhi by his judgment dated 31.7.1991 passed his award. Consequently, the petitioner was paid a sum of Rs. 1,10,20,624.00 which amount represented towards principal amount at Rs. 41,96,496.00 and interest at Rs. 76,84,829.00 upto 18.5.1992. According to the petitioner no tax is leviable on interest accruing upto 31.3.1982 as it had become time barred. However, on 31..3.1993 the petitioner was served with notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for 16 assessment years i.e. for the assessment years 1968-69 to 1971-72 and assessment years 1981-82 to 1992- 93 asking the petitioner to file return of income for these years.

(3.) By this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the aforesaid notices issued under Section 148 for the assessment years 1968-69 to 1971-72 and for the assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83 and also the re-assessment proceedings. In pursuance of the aforesaid notices the petitioner filed revised returns for the assessment years 1983-84 to 1992-93 paying additional tax amounting to Rs. 32,22,828 .00 . For the assessment years 1961-62 to 1981-82 and 1982-83, the petitioner informed the Income Tax Officer that the notices for these years were time barred under Section 149 of the Act and that the provisions of Section 151 are not attracted to the facts of the case because there was no finding or directions of any Court to assess or re-compute his income for the said years. By letter dated 7.2.1996 the respondent No. 2 informed the petitioner that his case was covered by Section 150(i) and that the impugned notices were within jurisdiction.