RUDRA RAO K Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) : This is an application for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents, namely (1) the ITO, Special Survey Circle, Vijayawada, and (2) the IAC, Vijayawada, "to forbear from over- stepping the limits and bounds that the IT Act has prescribed for the exercise of the power for conducting the enquiry pending assessment and to confine their acts to the procedure laid down under the Act and to complete the assessment of the petitioner in G. I. No. T. C. 161. V. 1955-56, according to law without any further delay."

(2.) THE petitioner is a resident of Vijayawada, at which place he has been dealing in radios and electrical goods since July, 1951. In order to appreciate the contentions raised in the writ petition, it would be useful to set out the admitted facts in their chronological sequence. On the 8th Aug., 1955, the ITO, who was in charge of the Special Survey Circle, at the time, made an inspection of the account books of the petitioner at his shop. On the following day, the first respondent issued a notice to the petitioner, under s. 22(2) of the IT Act, to submit a return of his income. On the same day towards the evening, the exact time is not ascertainable from the record but it is asserted by the petitioner that it was at about 5 p.m., the first respondent sent notice to the petitioner under s. 22(4) of the Act calling upon him to submit his account books for eight years, from the 1st April, 1946. THE notice specified that the petitioner was to submit those account books at 11 a.m. on the following day. On the 10th Aug., 1955, the petitioner produced his account books from the year 1951. THE first respondent asked the petitioner to keep the books in his office as he had no time to look into them that day. THEy were eventually returned to the petitioner on the 13th Aug., 1955. On the 12th Sept., 1955, the petitioner submitted his return wherein he disclosed a total income of Rs. 2,117-12-0. On the same day the first respondent again issued a notice to the petitioner under s. 22(4) and 23(2) to produce his account books and evidence. On the 15th Sept., 1955, the petitioner, through his authorised representative, produced his books which were examined by the first respondent. On the 23rd Sept., 1955, the petitioner received a letter from the first respondent calling for certain particulars and asking him to appear before him on the 5th Oct., 1955. On the 5th Oct., 1955, the petitioner wrote a letter to the first respondent requesting time till the end of the month. On the 28th Oct., 1955, the petitioner submitted his reply to the letter of the first respondent, dt. 23rd Sept., 1955. On the 12th Jan., 1956, the first respondent again wrote to the petitioner asking for details of the amounts lent by him to his parents. This he was asked to submit on or before the 16th Jan., 1956. On the 16th Jan., 1956, the petitioner's authorised representative asked for time till the end of January, 1956. On the 2nd Feb., 1956, the first respondent reminded the petitioner with regard to his letter, dt.12th Jan., 1956, and asked him to produce his books. This was followed by two letters by the petitioner to the first respondent on the 6th Feb., 1956, and 7th March, 1956, and a short while thereafter, on the 29th March, 1956, the petitioner presented the writ petition in this Court.

(3.) IT has been stated by the learned counsel for the respondents that both the officers have since been transferred from Vijayawada and that they are now serving at other places. The present officer serving at Vijayawada has filed a counter- affidavit denying the allegations contained in the petitioner's affidavit. When allegations of mala fides are made against officers, it is proper that the individuals against whom those allegations are directed must themselves answer them and it should not be left to some other officer to do so. As the concerned individuals have not, in the first instance, filed affidavits in this Court, I gave them a further opportunity at the request of the learned counsel for the Department, and Sri Kasi Viswanatha Pillai and Sri K. Balasubrahmanyam have since filed their counter-affidavits in this Court denying the allegations made against them. The officer has stated that he never transgressed the limits of the law and that he was always trying to do his duty honestly and fairly.