SUGANCHAND CHANDANMAL Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application the notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, dated the March 30, 1970, in respect of the assessment year 1961-62 is the subject-matter of challenge. The assessee is a registered partnership firm. It was contended that there was no material for reopening. In answer to the rule nisi in the affidavit-in-opposition it was stated on behalf of the respondent that for the assessment year 1961-62 the firm had filed return of income on February 22, 1962, disclosing an income of Rs. 80,006. The income-tax assessment of the petitioner-firm for the assessment year 1961-62 was completed on March 28, 1962, on a total income of Rs. 83,649 in the status of a registered firm. The partners of the said firm at the relevant time were Sugan Chand Patwari, Chandanmull Agarwalla, Hulasi Debi and Rukmini Debi. On October 16, 1965, all the partners of the petitioner-firm filed disclosure petitions under Section 271(4A) of the Income-tax Act before the Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal III. In the said disclosure petitions it was admitted that the personal funds belonging to the aforesaid four partners were invested in the books of account of the petitioner-firm for the accounting year 2017 Rama Navami, relevant to the assessment year 1961-62, in the names of various bogus parties. Thereafter, proceedings were initiated against the petitioner-firm. It was stated that from the disclosure petitions it would appear that fictitious and false entries were made in the books of the assessee-firm. The reasons as recorded under Clause (a) of Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for obtaining sanction were produced before me and the said reasons were to the following effect:

(2.) The rule is made absolute.

(3.) If in the meantime pursuant to the said notice any reassessment proceeding has been completed the same is also quashed and set aside. There will be no order as to costs.