SHEILA BRIJ JAGGI Vs. 11TH ITO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in this petition is to the notice issued by the ITO under S. 148 of the IT Act, 1961, for the asst. year 1980 81. Her case is that she filed her return for the year originally on December 30, 1980, and a revised return on October 20, 1981. So far as she is aware, the assessment was not made. Placing reliance on the Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Ranchhoddas Karsondas (1959) 36 ITR 569 (SC), Shri Pandit, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that valid notice under S. 148 of the Act could not have been issued when the return was filed but no assessment was completed. In the absence of the affidavit in reply, the averments made in the petition, it was stated remained unrebutted. Shri Jetley, learned counsel for the IT Department, on the other hand, invited the Court's attention to the fact that, even according to the petitioner, the return of income was not accompanied by the P&L a/c and the valuation report. The return was incomplete and thus an invalid return. To this, Shri Pandit's contention is that S. 139(9) of the Act requires the ITO in the case of an incomplete return to bring the said fact to the notice of the assessee so that the return to the extent it is deficient is completed. Nothing of the type was done. In the circumstances of the case, it has to be assumed that the return for the asst. year 1980 81 filed by the petitioner was pending. It is settled law that income cannot be said to have escaped assessment when the assessment proceedings are pending. The notice under S. 148 of the Act issued by the ITO is, therefore, without jurisdiction. The same is quashed. In the result, rule is made absolute in terms of prayer cl. (a). No order as to costs.