T S SUJATHA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is an assessee under the Income-tax Act, 1961. A notice issued under Section 158BD of the Act by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Investigation Circle, Kottayam, is challenged in this writ petition.

(2.) LEARNED senior counsel, Mr. Ramachandran, made two submissions. According to him, the third respondent has no jurisdiction in the matter. He submits that exhibit R-3(A) notification enabling the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Investigation Circle, to exercise jurisdiction for the connected cases/persons also, cannot apply to the case of the petitioner. The petitioner is an independent assessee and her case cannot be said to be connected with the assessment of her husband, Mr. M. K. Thankachan. The expression "connected case" has no legal connotation and, therefore, unless the Assistant Commissioner records his satisfaction that undisclosed income belongs to the petitioner, he cannot proceed with the assess ment.

(3.) IN reply, learned standing counsel submitted that it is true that the assessment order proceeded against the petitioner's husband to the effect that the undisclosed bank accounts in the name of the petitioner is out of the undisclosed income of the assessee himself as the wife of Mr. Than kachan. The said order was passed because, Thankachan could not explain the source of such bank account. Thankachan has gone in appeal. Until the matter reaches finality, the Department has to proceed as a protective assessment which is followed as a general practice. IN support of his con tention, he has referred to a decision of the Supreme Court in ITO v. Bachu Lal Kapoor, 1966 60 ITR 74 . Their Lordships while holding that in such circumstances, in reality, it is to arrive at the correct figure, observed as follows (page 80) :