GOVIND BALKISHAN PAREEK Vs. ITO E CIRCLE JAIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, in the matter of notice dated 6. 2. 85, served on the petitioner under section 148 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), for the assessment year 1980-81, the petitioner has challenged the impugned notice on the ground that no reasons have been disclosed by the assessing authority as to what was the basis on which the notice was sent to the petitioner and in absence of disclosure of reasons, the petitioner was not bound by the disclosure Shri Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that for the assessment year 1980-81 late Shri Balkishan Pareek, Advocate, submitted his return disclosing income from property, income from profession and income from other sources well within time. The assessment of the petitioner was completed on 12. 1. 81 on a sum of Rs. 14,115 as per return and a sum of Rs. 510/- was refunded to the assessee on 19. 7. 80 as excess advance tax which was paid. The original assessment order dated 12. 1. 81 has been referred to as Annex. 1 to the writ petition.

(2.) ON 6. 2. 85, non-petitioner issued notice mentioning therein that he has reasons to believe that the income chargeable to tax for the assessment year 1980-81 has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 148 of the Act and it is proposed to re-assess the income and that the petitioner was further required to file the challan in the prescribed form within 30 days from the date of the receipt of the notice for the assessment year in question. The petitioner received the said notice on 12. 2. 85 vide Annex. 2.

(3.) SHRI Mehta has also placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd. Vs. ITO, Special Investigation Circle 'b', Nagpur, in which the Apex Court has held as under :~ "where, upon the issue of a notice under section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1992, a claim is made in a writ petition that the Income-tax Officer had no power to issue the notice and that the power is exercised not for any legitimate purpose for which it may be used, but for the purpose of making a fishing enquiry and to review a previous order made in favour of the petitioner, a rule upon the Income- tax Officer to show cause why the notice should not be set aside and an opportunity to him either to accept or to deny the facts and to set out such other material facts as have a bearing on the question, is at least called for. When the party claiming relief challenges on oath the existence of the conditions which confer jurisdiction, and sets out facts which may, unless disproved, support his case, an order dismissing his petition in limine may not properly be made. "