SMT. JHARNA DEY Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ application under challenge are two notices, both dated 19th March, 2004, issued by the respondent No.1, being the Income Tax Officer, Ward-I, Bankura (for short ITO) to the petitioner under Sec. 148 of the Income Tax Act (for short the IT Act), 1961. By the said two impugned notices the ITO sought to reopen the assessment for the years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001.

(2.) The petitioner prays for a writ in the nature of Mandamus to quash and/or set aside the said two notices marked respectively as annexures P-2 and P-7 to the writ petition as well as the order of rejection dated 2nd Feb., 2005, also issued by the respondent No.1/ITO, marked annexure P-19 to the writ petition. It is relevant to note that by the said rejection order dated 2nd Feb., 2005 the representation of the petitioner qua the said two notices dated 19th March, 2004 were disposed of without any intervention by the ITO.

(3.) The point that arises for consideration as argued by Sri R. K. Biswas, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner, is that the said impugned notices of the ITO are contrary to the law then settled by the Honourable Apex Court in the matter of Amiya Bala Paul Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 2003 (262) ITR 407 (SC) . The said judgment was delivered on 7th July, 2003 and, Sri Biswas submits that the said judgment was brought to the notice of the respondent No.1/ITO by the petitioner vide her letter dated 10th March, 2004. Such position of law was ignored by the ITO and the ITO proceeded with the impugned notices against the petitioner on the ground that the valuation for constructing her residential property remained an unexplained investment in her returns.