RAMJANKI DEVI Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A common question as to "whether the petitioners' applications under Section 273A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has been wrongly rejected by the Commissioner of Income-tax", is involved in all the above three cases which have cropped up because of the fact that application was moved post search and seizure operation carried on by authorised officers of the Income-tax Department under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the residential premises of Shri Kalianmal Jain at house No. 1563, Singhiji-ka-rasta, Jaipur, on January 12, 1988.

(2.) IN order to appreciate the point involved in these cases, it would be relevant to quote briefly the facts of each writ petition. IN Writ Petition No. 4624 of 1989, Smt. Ramjanki Devi is a partner in a firm, Messrs. Chandmal Kalianmal, Jaipur, which is an assessee for the last several years. The petitioner, Smt. Ramjanki, too was assessed for the assessment year 1987-88 showing her total income to be Rs. 17,691 which was -assessed under Section 143(1) of the INcome-tax Act on August 31, 1987. Then, on January 12, 1988, the aforesaid search and seizure was carried out at the residence of Shri Kalianmal Jain who happened to be the petitioner's father and certain documents were seized. Some of the documents seized disclosed that certain gifts were received by the assessee through Nathulal, petitioner, in Writ Petition No. 4625 of 1989, Miss Sapna, daughter of Nathulal's brother, Shri Mahaveer Kumar and Smt. Ramjanki Devi, widowed sister of Nathulal. The gifts received which were shown in the documents were as under : <FRM>JUDGEMENT_63_ITR188_1991Html1.htm</FRM>

(3.) IN support of his arguments, Shri Mehta submitted that Section 273A of the Act has been carefully worded by the Legislature and the words used are "voluntarily and in good faith made full and true disclosure of his income" and these words have been interpreted several times by various courts. Learned counsel placed reliance on Seetha Mahalakshmi Rice and Groundnut Oil Mill Contractors Co. v. CIT [1981] 127 ITR 579 (AP), Jakhodia Brothers v. CIT [1978] 115 ITR 61 (All), Harjas Rai v. CIT [1982] 138 ITR 77 (P & H), Dhan Raj v. Commissioner of INcome-tax [1983] 140 ITR 652 (All) ; S. R. Jadav Desai v. WTO [1980] 121 ITR 531 (Kar), Radhey Shyam Chandrika Prasad v. CIT [1983] 139 ITR 274 (All), Shiv Narain Dhabhai v. CWT [1980] 121 ITR 224 (Raj), Rasoolji Buxji v. CIT [1988] 174 ITR 328 (Raj), A. C. Gopinatha Menon v. CIT [1988] 173 ITR 404 (Ker) and Kundan Lal Behari Lal v. CWT [1975] 98 ITR 359 (All). Learned counsel also submitted that, in view of the fact that on February 17, 1988, itself, notice in proceedings under Section 147(a) of the Act had been issued which will not be meant to have been that the petitioners had the knowledge because there is distinction between notice issued and notice served. What is required in law is the service of the notices and not the mere issuance of the notice. Learned counsel relied on CWT v. Kundan Lal Behari Lal [1975] 99 ITR 581 (SC).