GUPTA COLD STORAGE Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against the notice issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the I.T. Act. The short facts are as under :

(2.) THE petitioner started construction of a cold storage from August 19, 1960, which was completed in the assessment year 1962-63. A return under Section 139 was filed by the petitioner for the assessment year 1961-62. It was claimed that no business was done and that only installation and constructions were done in the relevant financial year. THE ITO passed an order under Section 143(3) accepting the claim made by the petitioner that no business was made in that year.

(3.) SRI Deokinandan, learned counsel for the revenue, has refuted the arguments of SRI Hajela and has urged that the valuation report clearly established that the petitioner did not show the correct investment in the cold storage. He has urged that the argument raised on behalf of the petitioner that the building, plant and machinery should be considered as separate items of investment was misconceived and that the notice issued, in the circumstances, was justified and was in accordance with the law.