G R CONSTRUCTIONS Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a registered firm registered both under the provision of the Indian Partnership Act and under the provisions of the I.T. Act, 1961. Since May 1, 1970, the petitioner -firm has been carrying on business of purchase and sale of land, of building contractor and of organising societies for house -building. The respondent herein is the ITO having jurisdiction to assess the petitioner -firm. The year under dispute is assessment year 1977 -78, the relevant accounting period being May 1, 1975, to April 30, 1976. The petitioner is being assessed to income -tax from the very first year of inception of its business, that is, from assessment year 1972 -73 onwards. For the assessment year 1977 -78 the petitioner filed its return of income on April 14, 1978. Along with the return the petitioner filed a computation of income, profit and loss account and the balance -sheet for the year ended April 30, 1976. That assessment was completed. Thereafter, notice under s. 143(2)(b) of the I.T. Act was issued on December 27, 1979, in connection with the assessment year 1977 -78 and the date of hearing was fixed for January 17, 1980. On January 17, 1980, the petitioner's accountant along with the authorised representative, M. J. Desai of I. G. Desai and Co. Chartered Accountant, s Surat, appeared before the respondent with the books of account for the relevant accounting year. The books of account, according to the petitioner, were examined by the respondent who made certain inquiries and sought for certain further information and an explanation which was given to him by the petitioner's authorised representative. The queries raised by the respondent and the information sought for were handed over by the authorised representative and the fact that they were examined was indicated by way of remarked of the authorised representative on the papers. Thereafter, the petitioner received an assessment order dated April 25, 1980, passed by the then ITO. In the assessment order against column No. 7, the section and sub -section under which the assessment was made were mentioned as s. 143(1), though in fact, according to the petitioner, the same ought to have been s. 143(3), as the assessment was completed under s. 143(3) of the Act after the issuance of a notice under s. 143(2)(b) of the Act.

(2.) THE previous ITO appears to have been transferred and the jurisdiction appears to hag been changed and the present respondent herein became the officer -in -charge of the petitioner's case. In the month of September, 1980, the petitioner was served with summons dated September 10, 1980, under s. 131 of the Act to appear before the respondent on September 19, 1980, along with the books of account for the assessment year 1977 -78. In fact, at that time no proceedings for the said assessment year were pending as envisaged and required by s. 131 of the Act. There is a space provided in the form of the summons which was kept blank and on the reverse of the summons form it was mentioned : 'Come with books of account for A.Y. 1977 -78 though order has been passed under section 143(1).'

(3.) IN our opinion, the real document in this case is the notice dated December 27, 1979, a copy of which is Ex. B to the petition. This notice was issued under s. 143(1)(b) of the Act and it states : 'There are certain points in connection with the return of income submitted by you for the assessment year 1977 -78 in regard to which I should like some further information. You are hereby required to attend my office at Nanpura on 17 -1 -1980 at 2 -00 p. m. either in person or by a representative duly authorised in writing in this behalf or there produce or cause to be produced at the said time any documents, accounts and the evidence on which you may rely in support of the return filed by you.'