1975 (8) TMI 44 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Conditions precedent for the issue of notice u/s 148 within the meaning of section 147(a).
2. Limitation prescribed u/s 149(1)(b) for issuing notice u/s 148.
3. Validity of sanction by the Commissioner of Income-tax u/s 151.

Summary:

1. Conditions precedent for the issue of notice u/s 148 within the meaning of section 147(a):
The petitioner challenged the notice dated March 10, 1971, issued u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, arguing that the conditions precedent for such a notice within the meaning of section 147(a) were absent. The court found that the Income-tax Officer assumed jurisdiction based on two grounds: (1) a mistaken belief that the assessee-firm made a disclosure under the Finance (No. 2) Act of 1965, and (2) information regarding a loan account in the name of an employee, which should fall under section 147(b). The court held that the first ground was non-existent and the second ground fell under section 147(b), making the notice barred by limitation u/s 149. Therefore, the conditions precedent for issuing the notice u/s 148 were absent, rendering the notice illegal and without jurisdiction.

2. Limitation prescribed u/s 149(1)(b) for issuing notice u/s 148:
The notice u/s 148 was issued after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year (1962-63). The court noted that for the notice to be valid, it required the satisfaction of the Commissioner as per section 151(2). Since the second ground for issuing the notice fell under section 147(b), the notice was barred by limitation u/s 149(1)(b), as it was issued after the four-year period.

3. Validity of sanction by the Commissioner of Income-tax u/s 151:
The petitioner contended that the sanction by the Commissioner of Income-tax was mechanical and without application of mind. The court found that the first ground for issuing the notice was mistaken and non-existent, making the Additional Commissioner's satisfaction mechanical. Regarding the second ground, the court held that the satisfaction could only be with respect to section 147(b), and thus, the notice was barred by limitation u/s 149. Consequently, the sanction was not valid as contemplated u/s 151, rendering the notice u/s 148 invalid.

Conclusion:
The court quashed the impugned notice dated March 10, 1971, u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, declaring it illegal and without jurisdiction. The petition was allowed, and the rule was made absolute without any order as to costs.