JAYANTKUMAR MOTICHAND DOSHI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is being assessed as an individual under the provisions of the Indian IT Act, 1961 (the Act for short). The petitioner filed return of the income on 31st August, 1990 for the asst. yr. 1990 -91 declaring total loss of Rs. 1,03,330. In response to the statutory notice issued by the Asstt. CIT (Inv.) (2), Rajkot, the petitioner appeared before him. The petitioner is the President of Shri Vitrag Co -op. Housing Society Ltd., Rajkot, the registered office of which is situated at New Ghee Kanta Road, Rajkot. The petitioner is carrying on business of developing lands and putting up construction, in the name and style of M/s. Reliable Construction Company. The developer and contractor of Shri Vitrag Co -op. Housing is M/s. Reliable Construction Company. Having regard to the statements of persons recorded during the course of assessment proceedings and also the past record, the Asstt. CIT (Inv.) observed that booking of houses, allotment of houses, and calculation of sale price were/are all in control of the petitioner. There is also another Housing Society, namely, Shri Naminath Co -op. Housing Society Ltd., Rajkot, having its registered office at Illa Villa, Ashapura, Rajkot in which close relatives of the petitioner are members.

(2.) IN order to appreciate the controversy arising in this revision application, it would be worthwhile to ascertain as to what is done by the Asstt. CIT (Inv.).

(3.) MR . Nanavati, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the impugned assessment order has not been passed under the provisions of the Act and is passed de hors the Act and therefore, the civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by the petitioner. It was submitted that the record of some other proceeding was taken into consideration while passing the assessment order in the case of the petitioner for the asst. yr. 1990 -91 and the same being violative of the principles of natural justice, the suit was maintainable. It was further submitted that relying upon the three statements, the impugned order of assessment could not have been passed by the Asstt. CIT (Inv.) and the said order being null and void, the suit was maintainable. Lastly, it was submitted that both the Courts below have found in favour of the petitioner that prima facie the petitioner has got a good case and, as the learned judges have failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in them, the present revision application should be entertained and necessary reliefs should be granted to the petitioner.