VIDYA SAGAR Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition, whereby the petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 226/227 of IT Act, 1961 (for short, "the Act"). Further prayer is for restraining the respondents from taking any further action in pursuance of the said notice.

(2.) BRIEFLY , the facts, as pleaded in the petition, are that the petitioner is an income -tax assessee having his main source of income as rent from property known as SCO 49 -50 -51, Sector 17C, Chandigarh. The petitioner is the owner to the extent of half share in the said property. Besides this, the petitioner is also a partner in a firm, namely, M/s Aggarwal Flour Mills, Karnal. For the asst. yr. 1979 -80, the petitioner filed his return of income. While dealing with the same, the AO allowed statutory deduction of 1/6th from the income from house property on account of repairs, as claimed by the petitioner. During the subsequent years, i.e., 1980 -81, 1981 -82 and 1982 -83, similar statutory deduction had been allowed by the AO. Against the orders passed for these years, no further proceedings were taken and the same attained finality.

(3.) FOR the asst. yr. 1983 -84, the petitioner filed his return of income and claimed l/6th statutory deduction under s. 24 Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner went in appeal before the Commissioner of Income -tax (Appeals), aside the order of assessment. Before any decision in the appeal could be taken, the AO issued notice to the petitioner under s. 148 of the Act for the asst. yr. 1979 -80 alleging that income for that year had escaped assessment within the meaning of s. 147 of the Act. In response to the notice, the petitioner filed his return, which was originally filed by him. The petitioner approached this Court by filing the present petition, while further proceedings before the AO in pursuance of the notice issued under s. 148 of the Act after filing of return by the petitioner were in progress. As is evident from the petition, the petitioner did not file any reply before the authority taking any objection against initiation of proceedings under s. 148 of the Act.