COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. KIRAN DEVI SINGHEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short point involved in this appeal is whether reasonable opportunity or being heard was given to the respondent by the appellant No. 1., who issued a notice in writing in connection with a proceeding under Section 33-B of the Income Tax Act, 1922, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). One of the notices issued by the appellant No. 1, in the circumstances hereinafter stated, was received by the respondent at Bldasar, District Churu, Rajasthan, on May 8, 1963. By this notice the respondent was informed that the date of hearing was fixed for May 9, 1963.

(2.) The respondent, having her residence at Basirhat in the district of 24-Parganas, used to be assessed to income tax by the Income Tax Officer, B-Ward, Dist. 24 Parganas. The appellant No. 1 served a notice on the respondent informing her that on examination of the assessment records for the years 1953-54 to 1961-62 and other connected records, he considered that the orders of assessment passed by the said Income Tax Officer on June 14, 1961, were erroneous as they were prejudicial to the interest of revenue. In this notice various grounds for reopening the assessment orders for the above mentioned assessment years were set out. In the returns filed by the respondent for the said years, she mentioned Basirhat address as her residence. The appellant No. 1, however, appears to have known that the respondent did not reside at the address disclosed by her, but actually resided at 20, Mullick Street, Calcutta. To make sure that the respondent received the notice, the appellant No. 1 sent the notices to both the addresses namely, Basirhat as well as No. 20 Mullick Street, Calcutta. The notice was served on the respondent by registered post an well as in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure.

(3.) On May 1, 1963, a notice was served on the respondent at 20, Mullick Street, Calcutta, and on May 2, 1963, the notice was served at the Basirhat address by affixing copies thereof. The notice sent to the respondent by registered post at the Basirhat address came back undelivered, but the notice sent to the Mullick Street address by registered post, was redirected and sent to Bidasar, Churu, Rajasthan, and was there served on the respondent on May, 8, 1963. On May 10, 1963 the respondent lent a written reply to the said notice. In this reply she contended that due to the short time allowed by the notice, it was not physically possible to produce the necessary evidence. She also alleged that she had a troublesome and complicated delivery and that the doctors were advising a major operation. She concluded by requesting at least four weeks time for representing her case before the appellant. She also asked for the substance of the enquiries made by the appellant No. 1 to enable her to rebut the materials collected against her.