COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Vs. CHAWLA TRUNK HOUSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE following question of law has been referred for our opinion by the I. T. Appellate Tribunal (Chandigarh Bench):

(2.) FOR the assessment year 1969-70, the assessee filed a return on December 31, 1969, showing an income of Rs. 5,472. The ITO was not satisfied with the return and called upon the assessee to produce accounts. While the accounts were being examined by the ITO, he found that there were cash credit accounts relating to four persons showing huge deposits by them to the assessee. Since the ITO was not satisfied with the accounts, he issued a notice under Section 143 (3) of the I. T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), for producing evidence to prove that the four creditors shown in its books of account were in possession of the amounts advanced to the assessee. While it was not able to satisfy the ITO by producing cogent evidence, the assessee filed a revised return on March 29, 1972, showing an income of Rs. 12,072 instead of Rs. 5,472, as disclosed in the initial return filed on December 31, 1969. The ITO finalised the assessment on March 30, 1972, and assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs. 1,34,440.

(3.) THE Addl. C1t issued a notice under Section 263 (1) of the Act to the assessee, who, in response to that notice, appeared before him. The assessee was told by the learned Commissioner that the ITO could not take into consideration the revised return for framing the assessment without issuing a fresh notice to the assessee under Section 143 (2) of the Act, and, therefore, the assessment was legally invalid and as such prejudicial to the Revenue. The stand of the assessee was that the assessment was made against the assessee as, instead of framing an assessment on the returned income of Rs. 12,072, the assessment was framed on the income of Rs. 1,34,440 and as such the order of assessment was prejudicial to the assessee and not to the Revenue, and since the assessee was not objecting to the assessment on the ground that no notice was issued under Section 143 (2) of the Act, the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to take proceedings under Section 263 of the Act. The learned Commissioner did not accept the stand of the assessee and set aside the proceedings of assessment by order dated September 21, 1972, on the following reasoning, which may be quoted in the words of the learned Additional Commissioner :