1969 (9) TMI 29 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved: Validity of notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961; Jurisdiction of Income-tax Officer; Delay in seeking writ relief; Applicability of writs of certiorari and prohibition.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The petitioner challenged the notice under Section 148 issued by the Income-tax Officer, "C" Ward, District II(2), Calcutta, on the grounds that she had already filed her return for the assessment year 1956-57 on 29th March 1961. The petitioner argued that the return was valid and thus, the notice for reassessment was without jurisdiction. The court referenced Supreme Court decisions in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ranchhoddas Karsondas and Commissioner of Income-tax v. S. Raman Chettiar, which established that if a return has been filed, the Income-tax Officer cannot ignore it and initiate reassessment proceedings.

2. Jurisdiction of Income-tax Officer:
The respondents contended that the return filed by the petitioner was invalid as it was submitted to the Income-tax Officer, Refund Circle, who had no jurisdiction over her case. They argued that the petitioner should have filed her return with the Income-tax Officer, District II(2), based on her residence. The court, however, held that the Income-tax Officer, Refund Circle, was not precluded from receiving the return and could transfer the file if necessary. The court emphasized that the general index number of the petitioner's file was with the Refund Circle, making the return valid.

3. Delay in Seeking Writ Relief:
The department argued that the petitioner was disentitled to relief due to an inordinate delay of four years in filing the writ application. They cited the Supreme Court decision in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bhailal Bhai, which stated that unreasonable delay could bar relief under Article 226. The court, however, found that the petitioner had continuously challenged the validity of the notice before each successive Income-tax Officer and only approached the court after being threatened with penalty proceedings. Therefore, the court concluded there was no undue delay.

4. Applicability of Writs of Certiorari and Prohibition:
The court discussed the discretionary nature of issuing writs, particularly certiorari and prohibition. It referenced decisions indicating that where there is a patent lack of jurisdiction, the court would generally interfere regardless of delay. The court cited Desai J.'s observations in Madhavlal Sindhoo v. V. R. Idurkar and the Privy Council's decision in Estate and Trust Agencies (1927) Ltd. v. Singapore Improvement Trust, which supported the principle that applications for such writs are not barred by delay as long as there is something left for the writ to operate upon.

Conclusion:
The court upheld the petitioner's contentions, finding that the return filed on 29th March 1961 was valid and that the notice under Section 148 was without jurisdiction. The court also rejected the argument of delay, emphasizing that the petitioner had consistently challenged the notice and sought relief promptly upon facing penalty threats. Consequently, the rule was made absolute in terms of prayers (a) and (c), with no order as to costs.