(1.) In each of these writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ, the petitioner is ore P.N. Balasubramanian, Chairman and Managirg Director, Barium Chemicals Limited, Ramavaram, 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- 70,1970-71.
(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 year 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70 to the Income-tax Officer, District VIII (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 28th January, 1972 in the High Court c f 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 5th May, 1972 and the order of transfer was quashed. Pursuant to the aforesaid orders of the Delhi High Court, the Income-tax Officer, District VIII (9), New Delhi, issued notices under section 142 (1) and 143 (2) of the Act on 30th May, 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 8th June, 1972. Thereupon, the petitioner filed another writ petition ir 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 31st March, 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 8th June, 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.) Before filing the Writ Petition No.95 of 1972 before the Delhi High Court, the petitioner made an application to the Central Board of Direct Taxes requesting that his cases may be transferred to the Income-tax Officer, Kothagudem, as it would be more convenient for the petitioner to conduct his income-tax assessment proceeding from Kothagudem. On 17th April, 1973 the Income-tax Commissioner, Delhi-III transferred the assessment files to the Commissioner of Income-tex, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, for onward transmission to the Income-tax Officer concerned. The petitioner received a letter from the Income-tax Officer, Khammam on 26th April, 1973 informing the petitioner that he has received the petitioner's case on transfer from Delhi and proposed to continue the proceedings from the stage left by the predecessor Income-tax Officer. By the said letter, the Income-tax Officer, Khammam, called upon the petitioner to furnish information on numerous points relating to the assessment years 1967-68, 1968-69, 1969-70 and 1970-71. Along with the letters, notices under sections 142 (1) and 143 (2) of the Act were sent fixing the cases for hearing on 30th April, 1973 for the four assessments under consideration. The abovesaid letter and notices were served on the petitioner on the same day. On 28th April, 1973, the petitioner wrote a letter to the Income-tax Officer, Khammam, raising several legal objections to the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer, Khammam to assess the petitioner. He further complained that the time given to the petitioner was totally inadequate and it was impossible for him to furnish the particulars called for. Before sending the said letter he spoke to the Income-tax Officer on the telephone and the Income-tax Officer told him that he was only acting under the instructions of the superiors and was helpless. This allegation is, however, denied by the Income-tax Officer inthe counter-affidavit. The letter was delivered to the Income-tax Officer, Khammam on 30th April, 1973 on which date the matters stood posted for hearing before the Income-tax Officer, Khammam. On 30th April, 1973, the Income-tax Officer, Khammam, sent another letter to the petitioner stating that a fresh opportunity was given to the petitioner by adjourning the cases for hearing to 4th May, 1973. The Income-tax Officer sent formal notices under sections 142 (1) and 143 (2) of the Act and this letter was received by the petitioner's secretary at Ramavaram when the petitioner was away and the letter and the notices were placed before the petitioner only on 5th May, 1973 when the petitioner returned to Headquarters. As the letter itself was seen on 5th May, 1973 and since the case had been posted before the Income-tax Officer on 4th May, 1973, the petitioner did not send any reply to the notices dated 30th April, 1973. The Income-tax Officer, Khammam, completed the assessment for the assessment years 1967-68, 1968-69, 1969-70 and 1970-71 under section 144 of the Act on 7th May, 1973. The petitioner received assessment orders for all the four years on 10th May, 1973. The assessment for the year 1967-68 was made on a total income of Rs; 4,81,590 against loss of Rs. 70,670 declared by the petitioner in his return. The assessment for the year 1968-69 was made on a total income of Rs. 60,760 against loss of Rs. 1,437 declared by the petitioner in his return. The assessment for the year 1969-70 was made on a total income of Rs. 2,37,465 against loss of Rs. 3,300 declared by the petitioner in his return. Finally, the assessment for the year 1970-71 was made on a total income of Rs. 2,34,100 against loss of Rs. 3,52,166 declared by the petitioner in his return. Aggrieved against the assessment orders passed under section 144 of the Act, the petitioner has now filed those writ petitions questioning the validity of the assessment.