SREERAMA MURTHY G Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition, filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a writ or direction prohibiting or restraining the ITO, Rajahmundry, from proceeding further in pursuance of notice dated December 11, 1970, issued under S. 148 of IT Act, 1961, proposing to reopen the assessment for the asst. yr. 1965-66 and requiring him to file a return of income for the said assessment year. The case as set up by the petitioner in his affidavit is as follows :

(2.) THE petitioner is a partner of Sri Venkateswara Ferry Company. His individual assessment for the asst. yr. 1965-66 was completed after a thorough scrutiny of the account books. On March 17, 1970, the income-tax officials raided the business premises of the said firm and also the houses of seven of its partners including that of the petitioner. No incriminating material was found in his house. THE firm did not conceal any income. THE incriminating material found in the possession of the managing partner of the firm, Mr. Ammi Reddy, had nothing to do with the firm.

(3.) IT was further submitted in the counter that some of the partners of the firm including the petitioner filed writ petitions bearing Nos. 647 to 649 of 1971, questioning the validity of the notice issued for reopening the assessment of the firm for the asst. yrs. 1965-66, 1966-67 and 1967-68 and they were dismissed. As against the said orders of dismissal, the petitioner had filed writ appeals but after arguing for some time, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants did not press those writ appeals and they were accordingly dismissed. As per the revised return filed by Ammi Reddy, the managing partner of the firm, the petitioner, received a sum of Rs. 59,747 towards his share, but had returned only an income of Rs. 24,637. IT is on the basis of these facts the ITO considered that there was reason for him to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment in the hands of the petitioner. The notice issued by him was valid and cannot be quashed. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and also of the standing counsel, Sri P. Rama Rao, at some length.