PURSHOTTAMDAS CHOWDHURY Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER A WARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This rule was obtained by the petitioner for quashing several notices under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, (referred to herein as the Act), proposing to reopen the assessment for the assessment years 1957-58, 1958-59 and 1959-60.

(2.) Shortly put the petitioner's case is that he is the karta of a Hindu undivided family, named as " Sagarmall Choudhury and others " (referred to herein as " the family ") which has been or is still being regularly assessed under the Act. The family has income from house properties and rice mill known as " Chowdhury Rice Mill". For the assessment years 1957-58, 1958-59 and 1959-60, the family has been duly assessed by the respondent No. 3 after verbal discussion with the petitioner.

(3.) On 19th March, 1965, three notices were issued to Chowdury Rice Mill by the respondent No 1 for the very same years with a direction to submit returns of income on the ground that the respondent No. 1 had reasons to believe that income of the petitioner escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act for which it is also stated that necessary satisfaction of the Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal I, has been obtained. Thereafter, three notices were issued under Section 142(1) of the Act, all dated January 1, 1966, asking for production of books of accounts and bank pass books by 17th January, 1966. Further notices for the same purpose were received on 24th January, 1968, demanding production of those account books and other papers by the respondent No. 4, but it is alleged that the petitioner gave explanations and he was assured by respondents Nos. 1 and 4 that proceedings under Section 148 of the Act would be dropped. Even so, a letter of 18th February, 1969, was received by which he was intimated by respondent No. 2 that the hearing of the petitioner's case was finally fixed for 25th February, 1969, with a request to produce the books of accounts and bank statements, etc. Then the petitioner by his letter dated 24th February, 1969, requested the respondent No. 2 to furnish materials on which he had reasons to believe that the income of the family had escaped assessment but nothing was given. It is alleged that there was no material before the Income-tax Officer concerned on which he might have reasons to believe that the petitioner's income for the disputed period escaped assessment on account of omission or failure on his part to disclose the material particulars before the Income-tax Officer in connection with the assessment for the relevant years. It is alleged that on the insistence of the Income-tax Officer, however, the petitioner had to file returns on 25th February, 1970, and then the case was finally fixed for hearing on 6th March, 1970. Then, in spite of the petitioner's demand for justice the proceedings were not dropped. That is how, in short, the petitioner felt aggrieved and obtained the present rule.