RADHA KISHAN Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ petition under article 226 praying that a writ of certiorari be issued quashing the assessment order dated the 19th of November 1962, for the year 1959 -60 passed under section 23(4) of the Income -tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) THE facts leading up to his petition are these : The petitioner company is a private limited company duly incorporated on the 29th of May 1957, under the Companies Act, 1956. A notice under section 22(2) of the Act dated 5th May, 1959, was issued to the petitioner calling for a return for the assessment year 1959 -60. In compliance with the aforesaid notice a return declaring a loss of Rs. 28,214.63 nP. for the assessment year 1959 -60 along with audited balance -sheet profit and loss account and auditors report was furnished on 8th of July 1959. Thereupon the Income -tax Officer issued a notice under section 23(2) of the Act dated the 31st of July 1959, requiring compliance thereof on the 5th of August, 1959. On the 4th of August, 1959, the petitioner asked for adjournment which was granted and the date fixed was the 8th of August 1959. On that date the petitioner produced his cash book journal ledger, wages register, voucher, bills, invoices and bank pass book. Certain further details were required by the Income -tax Officer. The case was adjourned for this purpose. The next date fixed was 14th August, 1959 on which date again the account books were produced and the details required were furnished. The information required by the Income -tax Officer presumably under section 23(3) regarding the margin of profit was also furnished on that date still more details were required and the case was adjourned to the 22nd of August 1959. Time was again asked for to get the necessary details. The case was, therefore adjourned at the request of the petitioner to the 5th of October 1959. On that date the petitioner was not able to furnish the information required regarding the account books of the predecessor firm and had therefore requested for some more time up to the end of the month as the old firm had promised to produce the account books. It was also stated that if the petitioner failed to get the account books of the old firm over which it had no control the Income -tax Officer might himself summon the account books of the old firm under section 37 of the Act. The case thereafter was fixed for 4th of August, 1959, 11th of December, 1959, 18th of December, 1959, 22nd of December, 1959, 28th of December, 1959, and 7th of January, 1960. The case however could not be taken up by the Income -tax Officer on any of these dates. The next date fixed was 20th of January 1960. On this date the request of the petitioner the case was adjourned to the 28th of January, 1960. Finally the case was fixed for the 12th of February, 1960. Admittedly the books were produced by the petitioner and the accounts were examined by the Income -tax Officer on the 12th of April, 1960, 20th April 1960, 29th of April 1960 and 12th of May 1960. The account books, thus between 8th of August, 1959, and the 12th of May, 1960, were admittedly produced by the petitioners and examined by the Income -tax Officer on a number of occasions. After the 12th of May, 1960, which was the last date on which the books were examined there was silence on the part of the Income -tax Officer till the 10th of August 1962, i.e. for period of nearly 26 months in the meanwhile on the 24th of August 1961 the Special Police Establishment Fraud Squad of Delhi raided the petitioners premises and seized the books for the accounting years 1957 -58, 1958 -59 and 1959 -60 relating to the assessment years 1959 -60 to 1961 -62 respectively. By a notice dated 19th July 1962 the Income -tax Officer issued the following notice for the assessment year 1959 -60 :

(3.) THE main ground on which the petition is based is that in the circumstances of the case there was no non -compliance with the notice under section 23(2) of the Act for the assessment year 1959 -60 and consequently the opposite party had no jurisdiction to assess the petitioner under section 23(4) of the Act. This contention has force. A notice was issued as already observed under the provision of section 23(2). That section reads :