INCOME TAX OFFICER Vs. SUBRAMANIA IYER R M

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Income-tax Officer, Kottayam is the appellant. He has challenged the decision of Mr. Justice M.U. Isaac allowing an original petition 805 of 1966 moved by the respondent seeking to quash a notice Ext. P-1 purported to he under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as well as a further notice Ext. P-5 under Section 143 (2) of the same Act. Various contentions were raised before the learned Single Judge and had been considered by the Single Judge and many questions have also been argued before us on which we express no opinion whatever in view of the injunction contained in the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Lalji Haridas v. R.H. Bhatt, 1965 55 ITR 415 (SC). A part of the judgment was quoted by the learned Judge. But it appears to us that the full impact of the judgment has not been realised by the learned Judge.

(2.) THE sentence underlined (here in ' ') above was not extracted in the judgment under appeal and we think that concludes the matter about the purported exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in matters such as that before us. One of the points raised by the assessee is that the notice under Section 147 is barred by limitation. No doubt there are other points as well. THEse also pertain to the question as to whether a notice under Section 147 can and should be issued; matters well within the jurisdiction and competence of the Income-tax Officer to decide.