MALIK PACKAGING Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of the present writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, M/s Malik Packaging, through its partner, Smt. Sofia Malik, seeks the following reliefs:

(2.) As the counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit have been exchanged between the parties, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition itself is being heard and disposed of finally at the admission stage itself in accordance with the Rules of Court.

(3.) Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows:According to the petitioner, it is a partnership firm consisting of two partners, namely, Smt. Sofia Malik and Anish Khan having 60% and 40% share respectively. It is engaged in the business of manufacturing of corrugated boxes rolls used in packaging purposes. For the assessment year 1994-95, the petitioner filed return of income on 8.12.1994 showing a total income of Rs. 3,010/-. The said return was filed in the status of a firm. Alongwith the return, it is alleged that the petitioner had filed manufacturing account, trading and profit and loss account, balance sheet, list of sundry debtors, sundry creditors and unsecured loans. The return was processed under Section 143(l)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") vide intimation dated 24.2.1995. The return was accepted in the status of a partnership firm. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny on random basis and a notice dated 27.10.1995 was issued under Section 143(2) of the Act. This notice was served upon the petitioner on 7.11.1995 but on account of illness of Smt. Sofia Malik, no body could appear before the Assessing Authority. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle II(3), Kanpur, had made the assessment on 6.3.1997. The Assistant Commissioner had invoked the provision of Section 144 of the Act and made the assessment by best judgment. He determined the taxable income of the firm on Rs. 50,000/- and assessed it in the status of A.O.P. Penalty proceeding under Sections 271(l)(c) and 271 (l)(b) of the Act was also initiated. Feeling aggrieved by the assessment order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kanpur who, vide order dated 15.10.1997, had dismissed the appeal. Still feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a revision under Section 264 of the Act before the Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur, vide order dated 28.2.2000, had dismissed the revision, which order is under challenge in the present writ petition.