CHIRANJILAL BAHRI Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER D WARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this rule has challenged the validity of the notices all dated the 28th March, 1962, issued by the Income-tax Officer, "D" Ward, Howrah, under Section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for assessment years 1940-41 to 1952-53 and also the validity of the notices under Section 22 of the Act for the said assessment years. He has, inter alia, prayed that the said notices under Section 22(4) and Section 34 of the Act be quashed and the respondents be commanded to cancel and/or withdraw the same and also to forbear from giving effect to and/or from taking any steps whatsoever in pursuance of the said notices. The only ground on which the said notices have been challenged at the time of hearing is that the necessary satisfaction of the Central Board of Revenue for the issue of the said notices were not given in accordance with law. Therefore, the condition precedent for assumption of jurisdiction by the respondent No. 1 under Section 34 of the Act has not been satisfied.

(2.) Mr. Deb, learned advocate for the petitioner, has submitted that in the instant case, there is no material to establish that the Central Board of Revenue was satisfied that this was a fit case for issue of notices under Section 34 of the Act. In this connection, Mr. Deb, learned advocate for the petitioner, referred to the provisions of the Central Board of Revenue Act, 1924, and to the Central Board of Revenue Regulation and Transaction of Business Rules, 1936, and contended that the affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents do not show that the Board had made and come to a decision to grant sanction in this case. There was no authenticated copy of the order of the Board before the court. The records of the Board have not been produced. Therefore, there was no evidence, according to Mr. Deb, that the Board was satisfied as contemplated under Section 34(1)(a) of the Act.

(3.) On the 15th July, 1971, the respondents filed an affidavit-in-opposition affirmed by Haripada Roy, the Income-tax Officer, Special Investigation Branch, West Bengal-II, who was the Income-tax Officer, "D" Ward, Howrah, at the relevant time. He, inter alia, contended that in making the assessment, the Income-tax Officer concerned had duly complied with the requirement of the law and had followed the necessary procedure. He also stated that he had reasons to believe that the income of the petitioner had escaped assessment on the ground of failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts for the assessment years in question. He further stated that the condition precedent for assumption of jurisdiction had been fully satisfied in the instant case.