ATTUKAL RADHAKRISHNAN Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Scope and sustainability of Ext. P5 order passed by the first respondent and P7 order passed by the second respondent sustaining imposition and demand of 'interest' under S.158 BFA (1) of the Income Tax Act ('IT' Act in short) is under challenge in this Writ Petition, stating that the said proceedings are beyond the scope of Ext. P4 order passed by the Settlement Commission under S.245D(4) of the IT Act which does not provide for any 'interest' and further that the order passed by the Settlement Commission is conclusive and binding by virtue of S.245 - I of the Act.

(2.) So as to analyse the application of the legal provisions to the given set of facts and circumstances, it is essential to refer to some basic facts and controversies involved.

(3.) The petitioner / assessee is an 'Astrologer' by profession, who derives income from different sources including from giving professional advice to people on various matters in the field of astrology; by virtue of the business in running a 'Kalyanamandapam' owned by him and also from various TV programmes. The departmental authorities conducted a search under S.132 of the IT Act in the residential and business premises of the assessee on 20.10.2000. Notice was issued to the assessee under S.158BC on 08.12.2000. Since there was no response, notice under S.142(1) dated 06.06.2002 was issued calling for return of income and cash flow. Since the petitioner / assessee did not turn up, reminder was issued on 13.08.2002 proposing to complete the assessment ex parte, which also was not responded, when another letter was issued calling for the return of income, enclosing copies of valuation report of the Valuation Cell of the Department in respect of the various assets.