HARBANS KAUR Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short question that arises in this writ petition is about the legality of the order passed by the Income-tax Officer while framing the assessment of the petitioner in her individual capacity on June 15, 1992 (annexure P-3). THE income-tax return was filed by the petitioner after a notice was issued to her to do so under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, "the Act"). In that return, the petitioner showed her income as 25 per cent. of her share in the firm, Messrs. Bharat Rice and General Mills, Budhlada, at Rs. 15,320. While passing the order (annexure P-3), the Income-tax Officer took the figure of income of 25 per cent. share of the petitioner from Messrs. Bharat Rice and General Mills, Budhlada, as Rs. 1,16,980. That figure was taken as per order dated March 31, 1992, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax in the case of the firm aforesaid on appeal, and thus assessment was framed accordingly in the case of the petitioner purporting to act under Section 143(1) of the Act. THE allegation of the petitioner in the writ petition is that no fresh notice as required under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued to the petitioner for raising the income as shown in the income-tax return and the assessment, as framed, was thus violative of the provisions of Section 143(2) and (3) of the Act

(2.) ON a notice of motion having been issued, written statement has been filed on behalf of the Revenue, inter alia, alleging that the assessment framed was in accordance with law. It is not specifically denied that fresh notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was not issued.