METAL DISTRIBUTORS LTD Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This rule under Article 226 of of the Constitution is directed against the notice dated March 24, 1973, issued under Section 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1964-65.

(2.) The petitioner is a company. The assessment was made by the respondent No. 2 on March 1, 1965. Four years thereafter, another ITO suddenly issued a notice under Section 148 of the Act and accordingly the petitioner filed the return under protest. The said ITO passed an order imposing additional tax by holding that the petitioner was a company in which the public were not substantially interested, but his order was set aside by the Appellate Tribunal on July 22, 1972, on the ground that the ITO had no reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment and that the said proceeding either under Section 147(a) or Section 147(b) of the Act was illegal and without jurisdiction.

(3.) Thereafter, the respondent No. 1 read the said order of the Tribunal and submitted a report to the CIT for his permission to reopen the assessment under Section 147(a) of the Act which was granted by the Commissioner. This report has been produced before me and in it the respondent No. 1 has stated that the memorandum and articles of association of the petitioner was not filed by the petitioner before the respondent No. 2 at the time of the original assessment or earlier. He has also stated that this document was filed only at the time of reassessment by the petitioner.