BALASUBRAMANIAN P N Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN each of these writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ, the petitioner is one P. N, Balasubramanian, Chairman and Managing Director, Barium Chemicals Limited, Kamavaram, Khammam District. He has filed these four writ petitions seeking to quash the orders of the INcome-tax Officer, Khammam, passed under Section 144 of the INcome-tax Act, 1961, making the best judgment assessments for the income-tax assessment years 1967-68, 1968-69, 1969-70 and 1970-71.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to these writ petitions are not of an all too common kind and unfold a bewildering range and variety of evasive methods adopted by an assessee in the process of assessment proceedings. THE petitioner is an assessee on the file of the Income-tax Officer, District VIII(9), New Delhi. He submitted his income-tax returns for the assessment years 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70 to the Income-tax Officer, District V1II(9), New Delhi, under Section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). THE said Income-tax Officer did not take any steps to complete the assessments for the said years till February, 1971. THE Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-I, New Delhi, in exercise of his powers under Section 127 of the Act then transferred the assessment jurisdiction over the petitioner's cases from the Income-tax Officer, District VIII(9), New Delhi, to the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle IX, New Delhi. This transfer was effected without notice to the petitioner. THE petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 95 of 1972 on January 28, 1972, in the High Court of Delhi challenging the validity of the transfer as being violative of the provisions of Section 127 of the Act. THE Delhi High Court admitted the writ petition and granted interim stay of the assessment proceedings before the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle IX, New Delhi. THE writ petition was ultimately allowed by the Delhi High Court on May 5, 1972, and the order of transfer was quashed. Pursuant to the aforesaid orders of the Delhi High Court, the Income-tax Office, District VIII(9), New Delhi, issued notices under sections 142(1) and 143(2) of the Act on May 30, 1972, informing the petitioner that his income-tax assessments for the years 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70 would be taken up for hearing on June 8, 1972. THEreupon, the petitioner filed another writ petition in the Delhi High Court bearing W.P. No. 542 of 1972 contending that the time-limit for making the assessments for the three years under consideration had expired on March 31, 1972, under Section 153(1) of the Act and, consequently, the Income-tax Officer had no power to make any assessment in the petitioner's case for the years 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70. THE Delhi High Court was pleased to admit the writ petition on June 8, 1972, and also passed an interim order restraining the Income-tax Officer, District VIII(9), New Delhi, from proceeding with the assessments for the three years under consideration.

(3.) THE central argument, if not the exclusive argument, in the case that effectively engaged our attention was that the assessment orders passed under Section 144 of the Act largely lacerated, as they were, by the violent breach of the principles of natural justice, cannot survive. THE learned counsel also submits that the petitioner has not filed any application under Section 146 of the Act to reopen the assessments and an appeal is not an effective remedy as the validity of the assessment itself cannot be gone into in an appeal under Section 251 of the Act. On the other hand, it is the contention of the revenue that the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy by way of an appeal, that the petitioner has already availed of that opportunity, that the appellate authority has got power to annul or set aside the assessment and that the petitioner is not, therefore, entitled to invoke the extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution.