INCOME TAX OFFICER Vs. SANTOSH KUMAR DALMIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the judgment and order dated March 11, 1993, passed by the court of first instance quashing the notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and consequent reassessment, if any, for the assessment year 1973-74. The learned judge, after considering the recorded reasons, came to the conclusion that there was no prima facie evidence at all to show that the assessee has received a higher price than disclosed.

(2.) The reasons which have been recorded by the Income-tax Officer are as follows :

(3.) We are unable to accept this contention. It is immaterial whether the Income-tax Officer has rejected the contentions of the assessee on the existence of the jurisdictional facts. He cannot assume jurisdiction by deciding jurisdictional facts wrongly. If the Income-tax Officer did not have any jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice, the writ court can always interfere irrespective of the fact whether the assessment pursuant to such notice has been made or not. If the notice issued under Section 148 of the said Act, which is the condition precedent for making reassessment is quashed, then the reassessment cannot stand and that is why the learned judge after quashing the notice under Section 148 of the said Act also directed that if any assessment order has been passed pursuant to the said notice, the same would also be set aside and quashed. That apart, the assessee also challenged the said order of reassessment in the writ petition. If the notice goes, so also does the order of reassessment.