GOURANGA LAL CHATTERJEE Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition in spite of rule being served no affidavit-in-opposition has been fild to contest this application. Mr. Som, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents, informs the court that the relevant file relating to this case is not traceable surprisingly. So no affidavit-in-opposition could be or at this stage can be filed. So I have no option but to proceed on the basis that the allegations contained in the writ petition are true and correct since no opposition has been filed.

(2.) The brief facts of this case are as follows : Petitioners Nos. 1 and 3 are partnership firms. Both at the relevant point of time were registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, and also under the Income-tax Act, 1961. Petitioner No. 2 is one of the partners of petitioner No. 1 while petitioner No. 4 is one of the partners of petitioner No. 3. Petitioners Nos. 1 and 3 are assessees in their capacities as firms so also the respective partners are individually assessed. Petitioner No. 1 procured a contract for construction of a concrete-cum-boulder masonry dam on the river North Koel at Mondal, District Daltonganj, in the State of Bihar. Since the value of the construction was high, in order to have financial assistance, petitioner No. 1 by an agreement in writing brought petitioner No. 3 as a working partner sharing profit and loss at the rate of 60 per cent, and 40 per cent. However, the books of account of the aforesaid income arising" out of the contract were maintained by petitioner No. 1. Both the partnership firms showed their incomes in terms of the agreement. Accordingly, they were assessed during the years 1984-85, 1985-86, 1986-87 and 1987-88. Even the partners of the aforesaid two partnership firms were duly assessed during the aforesaid relevant time. Assessment orders were also passed particularly for the relevant assessment year.

(3.) In the background of the aforesaid facts the impugned notice dated March 9, 1988, under Section 139(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has been issued in the names of Gouranga Lal Chatterjee and Chatterjee Eastern Syndicate. The aforesaid notice is under challenge. I record that at the ad interim stage interim stay of operation of the said impugned order was granted and since then this interim order has still been continuing.