VEERIAH REDDIAR Vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution, Mr. Kurien, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, challenges a notice issued by the respondent namely, Ext. D dated 19-11-1959. It purports to be a notice issued under S.37 of the Income Tax Act and it states that the party's attendance is required in the matter of assessment of his income and he is required personally to attend the office of the respondent on 23rd November 1959 at the time mentioned therein to give evidence or to produce either personally or through representative the documents mentioned in the list of documents directed to be produced. Ext. D further refers to "all books of account (original) to Bank Pass Books etc., relating your Bombay branch for the year 1127".

(2.) Mr. Kurien contends that for the assessment year 1953-54 which corresponds to the accounting year 1127, assessment had already been completed and, therefore, this notice, Ext. D, without in any way indicating as to the purpose for which such a demand is being made is illegal and without jurisdiction. In any event, Mr. Kurien contended that S.37 of the Act does not empower the office to issue a notice without at least indicating prima facie the reason or the purpose for which the account books etc. are directed to be produced for the year 1127, especially when the assessment for that particular year has already been completed.

(3.) Originally there was a notice, Ext. B issued on 13-10-1959 asking the party to produce the books of account relating to the Bombay branch for 1127 M. E. The petitioner sent an explanation under Ext. C on 15-10-1959. Under Ext. C the party while acknowledging the letter, Ext. B, stated that there was no provision under the Act to call for the production of the account books for 1127 in the manner in which it has been done. The party further requested the officer not to compel him to act beyond the provisions of the Act. The letter finally winds up with a request to the officer not to insist on the production of the books. In consequence of this reply evidently the officer for the first time issued a regular notice under S.37 of the Act on 19-11-1959, i. e. Ext. D, which I have already adverted to and it is the one that is sought to be quashed in these proceedings.