9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the notice dated 20th March 1975 under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Relevance of the information sought in the notice for the assessment proceedings. 3. Allegations of the petitioner regarding the misuse of the notice for purposes other than income tax assessment. 4. Petitioner's compliance with the notice and subsequent reminders. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the Notice Dated 20th March 1975 under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 The petitioner, M/s. Juggilal Kamlapat Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd., Kanpur, challenged the legality of the notice dated 20th March 1975, issued by the Income Tax Officer (ITO), Central Circle "V", Kanpur, under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court found that Section 142(1) empowers the ITO to require relevant material from an assessee who files a return under Section 139 or to whom a notice has been issued under subsection (2) of that provision for the purpose of completing the assessment proceedings. The court saw no reason to doubt the correctness of the ITO's assertion that he had information suggesting the petitioner was passing off non-controlled cloth as controlled cloth with fictitious stamping. Therefore, the notice was deemed legally valid. 2. Relevance of the Information Sought in the Notice for the Assessment Proceedings The petitioner argued that the particulars required to be produced by the notice under Section 142(1) were irrelevant to the assessment proceedings. The court, however, found that the detailed information requested in the notice, including trade names, sale rates for controlled and uncontrolled cloth, and the difference between these rates, was directly relevant for determining the correct income earned by the petitioner. The court noted that the prevailing sale price of uncontrolled cloth, which was of a superior variety, was higher than that fixed for controlled cloth. If the petitioner was indeed passing off uncontrolled cloth as controlled cloth, it would have likely marketed it at higher prices, resulting in undisclosed profits not shown in the return filed under Section 139. 3. Allegations of the Petitioner Regarding the Misuse of the Notice The petitioner alleged that the notice was issued to gather information for the excise authorities and that the ITO was acting in concert with them. The court found no merit in this allegation. It was noted that the ITO had specific information that the petitioner was falsifying accounts to make illegal gains by marking non-controlled cloth as controlled cloth and selling it at higher prices. The court emphasized that the proceedings before the excise authorities and the income tax authorities were separate and independent. 4. Petitioner's Compliance with the Notice and Subsequent Reminders The petitioner did not comply with the notice dated 20th March 1975 or the subsequent reminders. Instead, the petitioner sought extensions and expressed its inability to comply, arguing that the allegations were irrelevant for income tax proceedings. The court found that the petitioner's general denials and lack of specific assertions regarding the nature of the cloth sold were insufficient. The court noted that the petitioner had an alternative remedy under Section 146 of the Act, which it had already pursued unsuccessfully. The court dismissed the petition with costs to the respondent, recalling the interim orders dated 1st December 1975 and 15th December 1975. Conclusion The court dismissed the petition, upholding the legality and relevance of the notice issued under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court found no merit in the petitioner's allegations of misuse of the notice for purposes other than income tax assessment and emphasized the necessity of the information sought for determining the correct income earned by the petitioner. The interim orders were recalled, and costs were awarded to the respondent.
|
