DAMODAR LAL KABRA Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed that notices marked Exs. 1, 2 and 10, dated December 30, 1968, December 20, 1968 and March 27, 1965, respectively, issued to the petitioner by the Income-tax Officer, B-Ward, Jodhpur, may be quashed. It has also been prayed that the said ITO be restrained from, taking proceedings against the petitioner under Section 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Act"), for the assessment year 1948-49.

(2.) THE petitioner is a resident of Jodhpur in the State of Rajasthan. His case is that he received notice Ex. 1 on December 31, 1968, wherein it was mentioned that though notice under Section 148 of the Act for the assessment year 1948-49 had been issued to the petitioner and served upon him by registered post on March 31, 1965, yet, the petitioner had not filed the return so far. THE petitioner was, therefore, directed to file the return. He was also asked to produce necessary evidence regarding investment made by him in shares of R. B. Lodha & Company, Calcutta, and Mineral Mining Company, Bombay, along with the source of investments. A notice under Section 142(1) of the Act (marked Ex. 2) for production of necessary account books, etc., in respect of the relevant assessment year, was also enclosed with Ex. 1. On receipt of the letter Ex. 1, the petitioner submitted his reply on January 9, 1969, a copy of which has been placed on record and marked Ex. 3. THE petitioner denied receipt of notice on March 31, 1965, or any other date alleged to be dated March 27, 1965, and also, inter alia, pleaded that the ITO had no jurisdiction to take proceedings for assessment or reassessment under Section 147 of the Act. As for the notice Ex. 1 dated December 30, 1968, the petitioner's objection was that it has been issued after the expiry of the limitation prescribed under Section 149 of the Act, and consequently, no assessment or reassessment could take place on its basis. It may be pointed out that the notice dated March 27, 1965, was served upon one Madhav Lal Kabra. THE petitioner submitted an affidavit on January 10, 1969, wherein it was sworn by him that the notice dated March 27, 1965, had been served upon one Madho Prasad, who was' a complete stranger to him. It was however stated that the notice under Section 142(1) of the Act, dated December 20, 1968 (Ex. 2), received along with the letter, Ex. 1, was the first notice which had been received by the petitioner in respect of the relevant year. A copy of this affidavit has also been placed on record and marked Ex. 4. A request was also made by the petitioner by another letter of the same date that he may be given an opportunity to substantiate his plea of non-service of the notice dated March 27, 1965, and also prayed that the question of jurisdiction of the ITO to initiate proceedings under Section 147 of the Act be decided before the petitioner is called upon to furnish a return. On January 13, 1969, the petitioner submited another affidavit stating therein that another notice under Section 148 of the Act issued on March 4, 1965, and alleged to have been served upon one Damodar Lal M. Kabra of Malagaon, Nasik, in the State of Maharashtra, was never served upon him, but was served on some other person not known to the petitioner. A copy of this affidavit has been placed on record and marked Ex. 7. It appears that thereafter on February 13, 1969, the ITO examined the petitioner on the question of service of the two notices dated March 4, 1965, and March 27, 1965, and by his letter dated February 14, 1969 (Ex. 11), the ITO observed that in the circumstances of the case he was serving upon the petitioner a certified copy of the notice dated March 27, 1965, as the earlier service of this notice effected by registered post had been challenged by the assessee. Ex. 10 is the certified copy of the notice sent by the ITO with his forwarding letter dated February 14, 1969, marked Ex. 11. After receipt of this letter, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition for the reliefs mentioned above.

(3.) THE writ petition has no force and is hereby dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.