KRISHNA MOHAN BANIK Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this application under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the notices dated October 27, 1992, and November 13, 1992, issued by the INcome-tax Officer, Ward-II, Silchar, under Sections 143(2) and 142(1), respectively, of the INcome-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1990-91.

(2.) THE facts briefly are that the petitioner, Sri Krishna Mohan Banik, is a partner of Jagannath Bhandar which is a partnership firm registered under the Income-tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the "petitioner's firm"). For the assessment year 1990-91, the petitioner's firm filed its income-tax return on March 31, 1992, showing a total income of Rs. 1,16,770 and tax liability of Rs. 16,465 which had been paid as advance tax and self-assessment tax. THE Assessing Officer sent an intimation dated August 20, 1992, to the petitioner under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, demanding a further amount of Rs. 1,361 after computing the tax and interest payable on the basis of the total income returned by the petitioner. But thereafter by the impugned notice dated October 27, 1992, the Assessing Officer required the petitioner to attend his office at Silchar on November 13, 1992, either in person or by a representative and to produce the books of account, documents and any other evidence on which the petitioner relied in support of the return. On November 13, 1992, the petitioner submitted an adjournment petition before the Income-tax Officer, Ward-II, Silchar, stating therein that as the petitioner's accountant was ill, the matter be adjourned for at least a month. Along with the said adjournment petition, a certificate from the doctor was also filed certifying that the said accountant was suffering from acute bacillary dysentery and was advised to take complete rest for 30 days. THE Income-tax Officer, Ward-II, Silchar, however, issued a letter dated November 13, 1992, to the petitioner's firm giving it another opportunity of being heard on December 2, 1992. Along with the said letter, the said Assessing Officer also issued a notice to the petitioner to produce various books of account and other documents relating to the previous years relevant to the assessment years 1988-89, 1989-90 and 1990-91. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present civil rule challenging the aforesaid notices dated October 27, 1992 and November 13, 1992, of the Income-tax Officer, Ward-II, Silchar.

(3.) PROVIDED that no notice under this sub-section shall be served on the assessee after the expiry of the financial year in which the return is furnished or the expiry of six months from the end of the month in which the return is furnished, whichever is later."