9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the returns filed by the appellant. 2. Jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer to issue notices u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. Applicability of section 58(2) of the Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act, 1976, to the writ petition. Summary: Validity of the Returns: The appellant, a Government contractor and an assessee under the Income-tax Act, 1961, filed his returns for the assessment years 1967-68, 1968-69, and 1969-70 within the prescribed period. The Income-tax Officer served a notice u/s 143(2) on May 25, 1971, and the appellant produced relevant documents during the hearing. However, no assessment order was passed. Later, in a certificate dated June 16, 1973, it was noted that the returns were invalid. The appellant contested this, stating that he was not informed of the invalidity and was not given an opportunity to be heard. Jurisdiction to Issue Notices u/s 148: On March 18, 1974, the appellant received notices u/s 148, alleging that his income for the said assessment years had escaped assessment. The appellant contended that since the returns were already submitted and assessment proceedings were pending, the Income-tax Officer had no jurisdiction to issue notices u/s 148. The respondents argued that the returns were invalid due to the lack of particulars of profits and gains from business, thus justifying the issuance of notices u/s 148. Applicability of Section 58(2) of the Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act, 1976: A preliminary objection was raised by the respondents, claiming that the writ petition had abated u/s 58(2) of the Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act, 1976. The court held that the appellant sought redress against the reopening of assessments, not against the assessment orders themselves. The remedy referred to in clause (3) of article 226 contemplates an immediate remedy, not a remote one. Since the Income-tax Act, 1961, did not provide a remedy for the injury caused by reopening the assessments, the writ petition had not abated. Judgment: The court held that the returns filed by the appellant, though incomplete, could not be ignored by the Income-tax Officer. The Income-tax Officer had acted on the returns, issued notices u/s 143(2), and heard the appellant, but without completing the assessments, he issued notices u/s 148, which was beyond his jurisdiction. The court set aside the judgment of the learned judge, made the rule absolute, and issued writs of certiorari and mandamus quashing the impugned notices u/s 148 and restraining the respondents from giving effect to the notices. The appeal was allowed, with no order for costs.
|
