MIHIR KUMAR SARKAR Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for the issue of a writ or writs in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to forthwith issue certified copy of the order dated February 4, 1952, contained in the assessment file of 1950 -51 in the name of the Assessee Bidhu Bhusan Sarkar, deceased, being file No. 456 -b/A. The facts leading to this application are set out hereunder:

(2.) The Petitioner is one of the sons and successors -in -interest of Bidhu Bhusan Sarkar, deceased, hereinafter referred to as the 'Assessee'. Since January 16, 1949, the 8th Additional Income -tax Officer, District 1(2), Calcutta, was the Income -tax Officer of the Assessee. Voluntary Return of loss of the Assessee relating to 1947 -48 assessment year was filed by the Assessee. The said file was numbered as 456 -b/A in the Sec. of the said officer. On February 23, 1950, the said officer issued a notice under Sec. 34 of the Income -tax Act, 1922, for a fresh return for the said assessment year 1947 -48 by the Assessee. The principal" Income -tax Officer of District 1(2), Calcutta, completed assessment for the year 1947 -48 of the Assessee. On appeal, the said assessment was set aside on December 27, 1955. On December 30, 1955, the jurisdiction to assess the Assessee was transferred to the said principal Income -tax Officer, under Sec. 5(7A) of the said Act. Fresh notice under Sec. 34 for submission of the fresh return for the assessment year 194748 was issued by the said officer. The said officer completed fresh assessment for the said 1947 -48 assessment year on May 2, 1956, as a result whereof income -tax demand of about Rs. 14 lacs was levied upon the said Assessee.

(3.) The said assessment was challenged in appeal before Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Income -tax, on the ground that the proceeding under Sec. 34 started by the Additional Income -tax Officer, District 1(2), was not terminated or become barred by limitation. On February 11, 1956, those proceedings were alive and available. Therefore, the proceedings started by the principal Income -tax Officer were illegal. Thereupon, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner annulled the said assessment.