DALJEET KAUR Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS reference is made at the instance of the assessee under the Income-tax Act, 1961. Daljeet Kaur is the assessee in the case. She was married on April 13, 1975. Her spouse is a partner in a firm called Bhupendra Cloth Stores at a place called Hojai in Nagaon district. The assessee submitted three returns on July 25, 1978. For the year 1976-77 she showed an income of Rs. 8,500, for 1977-78 Rs. 8,600 and for the year 1978-79 she showed Rs. 10,100 as her income. The Income-tax Officer, A-Ward, Nagaon, served notice on July 26, heard her authorised representative on July 29, 1978, determined her income at Rs. 8,500 for 1976-77, Rs. 8,600 for 1977-78 and Rs. 10,100 for 1978-79. The Income-tax Officer appended a note in the file that action under Section 147/263 may be taken if necessary in future. These are the primary facts in the case.

(2.) THE Commissioner of Income-tax at Shillong informed the assessee that he would reopen the assessment orders and fixed a date for hearing. THE assessee desired to be heard in person. As she was enceinte she prayed for a long adjournment for the hearing. Her authorised representative, however, was heard. THE Commissioner of Income-tax, after inquiry, recorded that the inquiry made on July 29, 1978, by the Income-tax Officer was scrappy in that the assessee was not examined. THE inquiry revealed that no account books were maintained by the assessee. One unsigned paper was filed to show she had earned Rs. 8,500, Rs. 8,600 and Rs. 10,100 for the three assessment years. Her opening balance of account was Rs. 5,000 which amount it was represented she received at her marriage from her parents and relatives. Besides, four receipts were filed to show that she was paid Rs. 100 and in one case Rs. 120 from her pupils. She was represented to have imparted sewing lessons. THE particulars of the amounts received on this count were not shown.

(3.) THE jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act is vigorously assailed by the assessee. A cognate question is raised as to what forms a record for purposes of Section 263 of the Act. That the interests of the Revenue on the facts of the case were not at all prejudicially affected is the principal plank of the assessee in this court.