BHAJAN LAL Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition for quashing of the notices annexures P 1 to P 5 issued by the AO (respondent No. 2) to the petitioner under ss. 148, 142(1) and 143(2) of the IT Act, 1961 (for short "the Act").

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that in pursuance of the order of assessment passed by the ITO for the asst. year 1994 95, the petitioner deposited due tax. After about three years, the AO issued notice annexure P 1 dt. 26th Aug., 1997, under S. 148 of the Act proposing reassessment of the income of the petitioner for the said assessment year on the ground that his income had escaped assessment within the meaning of S. 147 of the Act. In response to the said notice, the petitioner filed the return dt. 7th Oct., 1997. This was followed by notices annexure P 2 dt. 6th Feb., 1998, issued under S. 142(1), annexure P 3 dt. 2nd July, 1998, under S. 143(2), annexure P 4A dt. 6th March, 2000, under S. 143(2), annexure P 4B dt. 6th March, 2000, under S. 142(1) and annexure P 5 dt. 6th March, 2000, under S. 142(1)/143(2) of the Act vide which the petitioner was required to appear in person or through an authorised representative and to produce the documents, accounts and any other evidence in support of his return mentioned in the notice annexure P 5 dt. 6th March, 2000. It was pointed out in the said notice that the investigation made by the Central Bureau of Investigation had revealed that the petitioner had made payments of Rs.

(3.) IN the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been averred that the writ petition should be dismissed as premature as no order adversely affecting the petitioner has so far been passed. According to them, it any such order is passed, then the petitioner can avail of the remedy of appeal before the CIT(A) and the Tribunal. The respondents have further averred that the notice under ss. 142(1) and 143(2) were issued to the petitioner on 2nd July, 1998 and 6th March, 2000, but he has failed to furnish any reply or explanation and has also not produced any evidence regarding the source from which the expenditure was made. As regards the petitioner's plea of the bar of limitation, the respondents have averred that the proceedings initiated against him are not barred by time and the same can be finalised within two years from the end of the financial year in which the notice under S. 148 of the Act was served.