SHIVARAM PODDAR Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for a certificate under Article 133 of the Constitution in respect of a Division Bench decision whereby an order dismissing a writ application for quashing a notice under Section 34 of the Indian Income Tax Act was affirmed.

(2.) The facts requiring to be stated for the limited purpose of this application are these: the petitioner was a partner of a firm called Balmukund Radheyshyam which carried on the business of commission agency in sale and purchase of cotton and cotton piece goods at Ratlam and Indore. The firm commenced business sometime in December, 1947, bat was dissolved in February, 1950. In August, 1952, one of the partners made a return of income of the said firm showing Rs. 18700/- and odd as net profits of the firm's first year of business, that is, the assessment year 1949-1950. An assessment was made on that basis and the tax assessed was duly paid. In October, 1955, the Income Tax Officer, (Central), Circle II, Calcutta, called upon the ex-partners of the said firm to produce certain books and accounts. This requisition was followed up by a notice on October, 22, issued under Section 34 of the Income Tax Act addressed to the petitioner informing him that the Officer had reason to believe that his income assessable to tax for the year ending 31st, March, 1950, had been under-assessed and therefore it was proposed to re-assess the income. The petitioner objected to the Income Tax Officer's jurisdiction to proceed in the matter. The objection having been overruled, an application under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed upon which a Rule Nisi was issued by this Court. In due course, it came to be heard by Sinha, J., who made the Rule absolute on January 3, 1957. The Department took an appeal against the decision but the appeal failed and was dismissed. Meanwhile, on March 28, 1958, the Income Tax Officer had issued another notice under Section 34 read with Section 22 (2) of the Act to the petitioner addressed as "partner of the firm of Messrs. Balmukund Radheshyam at the time of its dissolution". The notice stated that the Officer concerned had reason to believe that the income of the firm assessable to tax for the assessment year 1949-1950 had been under-assessed. It proceeded to state:

(3.) The petitioner again challenged the jurisdiction of the Income Tax Officer to proceed against the petitioner but the objection was overruled; he moved again this Court under Article 226 and obtained a Rule which was eventually discharged by Sinha, J., by a judgment and order dated April 27, 1959. Against this decision, he took an appeal which was heard by this Bench and dismissed by a judgment and order dated January 11, 1962. It is against this appellate decision that the petitioner proposes to take a further appeal to the Supreme Court.