GOPAL DAS GUPTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By a notice in writing purported to be a summons under Section 131 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the respondent, D. K. Guha, the Assistant Director of Inspection (Intelligence), Income-tax Department, required the petitioner personally to attend the office of the said respondent on the 21st June, 1968, as his attendance was required in connection with the proceedings under the Income-tax Act in the case of Aruna Estates Ltd., either personally or through an authorised representative to give evidence and to produce certain books of account and other documents specified overleaf. The petitioner was further notified that, in case of intentional omission to attend and give evidence as required, a fine up to Rs. 500 might be imposed under Section 131(2). The petitioner raised various objections to the said notice and the time for compliance was extended from time to time until finally, by his letter dated 25th June, 1968, the said respondent informed the petitioner that the said summons was issued under Section 131 of the Act in the exercise of his legal jurisdiction. This rule was obtained on the 27th June, 1968, calling upon (1) the Union of India, (2) the Assistant Director of Inspection, and (3) Sri D. K. Guha, who happened to be the said Assistant Director of Inspection, to show cause why appropriate writs should not be issued to quash the aforesaid notice dated the 19th June, 1968, and cancel all proceedings taken thereunder.

(2.) In order to appreciate the contentions raised in this application it would be necessary to examine the following provisions in the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as "the Act". Section 2(21) defines a "Director of Inspection" to mean a person appointed to be a Director of Inspection and to include a person appointed to be an Additional Director, a Deputy Director or an Assistant Director of Inspection. Section 131, as it stood at the material time, provided as follows :

(3.) It is to be mentioned in this connection that originally the words "Inspecting Assistant Commissioner" did not appear in Sub-section (1). By Section 38 of the Finance Act, 1965, the name of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner was inserted between the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Commissioner. In this connection it would be necessary to refer to the Finance Bill of 1965 and the Statement of Objects and Reasons therefor later on in this judgment.