LAWS(P&H)-1999-3-29

VIVEK GUPTA Vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES

Decided On March 09, 1999
VIVEK GUPTA Appellant
V/S
CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the notices dated March 20, 1997, by which the Income-tax Officer informed him that he had "reason to believe that - income in respect of - assessment years 1994-95 and 1995-96, has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961". These notices related to two years. The reasons were communicated vide documents, copies of which have been produced as annexures P-31 and P-32. It was pointed out that during the period from June 30, 1993, to February 23, 1994, the petitioner had made deposits of monthly instalments of a total sum of Rs. 69,538 in respect of the assessment year 1995-96, the petitioner was informed that he had made a deposit of an amount of Rs. 14,000 on March 9, 1995. Thus, notice under section 148 was given to the petitioner.

(2.) Mr. Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the notices issued by the authority are wholly without jurisdiction. This contention is based upon the fact that vide order dated September 27, 1996, the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (Investigation Circle-II), Ambala, had passed an order of assessment and taken the plot in respect of which the deposit had been made by the petitioner into consideration.

(3.) It is not disputed that the amounts of Rs. 69,538 and Rs. 14,000 have been deposited by the petitioner. According to Mr. Mittal, the deposits had been made on behalf of Mr. Dharam Pal. Is it really so ? Who gave the money ? What was the source ? These are matters which have to be gone into by the assessing authority. At the present moment, it cannot be said that the assessing authority could not have any reason to believe that some income had escaped assessment. Still further, on the petitioner's own showing, he does not hold a power of attorney on behalf of Dharam Pal. He is only an attorney of Prem Chand and Lekh Ram. If he holds the power of attorney on behalf of these two gentlemen, he would not be entitled to make a deposit on behalf of Dharam Pal. Thus, the view taken by the authority that the amount requires to be explained, cannot be said to be wholly fanciful or imaginary. The petitioner would normally have no occasion to make any deposit on behalf of Mr. Dharam Pal. In this situation, we cannot say that the requirements of section 147 of the Income-tax Act were not fulfilled.