MIRI MAL MAHAJAN Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts giving rise to this appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent may briefly be given as follows : The appellant, Miri Mal Mahajan, carries on business in the village Phanauri in district Jind. He never submitted any returns of his income. A complaint having been received by the Income-tax Officer, local inquiries were got made through the inspector of the department and on the basis of the material so collected, the Income-tax Officer issued a notice to him under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), for the assessment year 1962-63 and another notice was issued to him under Section 139 (2) of the Act for the assessment year 1966-67. Both these notices were sent per registered post acknowledgment due in one envelope. The envelope was returned to the Income-tax Officer with the endorsement " Refused to take ". On 21st June, 1967, fresh notices were issued under Section 142 (1) of the Act. Again, the registered cover was returned with an endorsement about the refusal of the same. On 17th September, 1967, fresh notices under Section 142 of the Act were sent calling upon the appellant to produce his account on 27th September, 1967. The appellant refused to take delivery of this also.

(2.) IN view of the non-co-operative attitude of the appellant, the Income-tax Officer, by his order dated 14th August, 1968, made assessment under Section 144 of the Act with regard to both these years. According to the information received by the department as a result of the inquiries, the income of the appellant from his dealings in foodgrains and money-lending business was about Rs. 8,400 per year. According to the report of the inspector, the appellant had constructed a house during the year 1961 at an estimated cost of Rs. 22,200. For the assessment year 1962-63 this amount was added to the estimated income of Rs. 8,400 as an income from undisclosed sources. The appellant was, consequently, assessed on an income of Rs. 30,600 for the year 1962-63 and on Rs, 8,400 for the year 1966-67. It was further stated that notices for penalty were issued, but we are not concerned with the same, because it was mentioned at the Bar that those proceedings had been dropped. No appeal was filed by the present appellant before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, but he filed revision petitions before the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 264 (3) of the Act, which were rejected. Being aggrieved, he filed Civil Writ No. 238 of 1970, which was dismissed by the learned single judge, and hence this appeal.

(3.) THE main point urged before the learned single judge and before us was that the assessment order for the year 1962-63 could not be passed after the expiry of four years from the close of the assessment year as provided under Section 153 (1) (a) of the Act. The other point taken on behalf of the appellant was that the order of assessment does not disclose the material on the basis of which the assessment has been made and that no such material was supplied to the appellant and no opportunity was given to him to rebut that material as required by the principles of natural justice. Both these points were negatived by the learned single judge.