1979 (7) TMI 59 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of notices issued by the Income-tax Officer under s. 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1948-49.
2. Jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer to initiate proceedings under s. 147 of the Act.
3. Service of notices dated March 4, 1965, and March 27, 1965, on the petitioner.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner filed a petition under art. 226 of the Constitution seeking to quash notices issued by the Income-tax Officer for the assessment year 1948-49. The petitioner argued that the notices were issued after the expiry of the limitation prescribed under s. 149 of the Act. The petitioner also denied receiving the notices on the alleged dates and challenged the jurisdiction of the ITO to initiate proceedings under s. 147 of the Act. The respondent contended that the notices were duly served and that there were grounds to believe that the petitioner's income had escaped assessment.

2. The petitioner raised concerns regarding the jurisdiction of the ITO to initiate proceedings under s. 147 of the Act. The petitioner argued that the ITO had not laid the necessary foundation for such proceedings as there was no reason to believe that income had escaped assessment. The petitioner relied on previous court decisions to support this argument. On the other hand, the respondent asserted that there were sufficient grounds to believe that the petitioner's investments exceeded a certain amount, leading to tax evasion. The court noted the legal principles established in previous cases but decided not to delve into this aspect as the case could be resolved on other grounds.

3. The issue of service of notices dated March 4, 1965, and March 27, 1965, on the petitioner was also contested. The petitioner claimed that these notices were not served on him, while the respondent argued otherwise. The court observed that the question of whether the notices were duly served was a matter of fact that should be determined by the ITO. The court emphasized that the petitioner should have first sought a determination from the ITO before approaching the court. As a result, the court declined to grant relief to the petitioner at that stage, dismissing the writ petition without costs.