9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (9) TMI 26X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner was not bound by the notice. Shri Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that for the assessment year 1980-81, the late Shri Balkishan Pareek, advocate, submitted his return disclosing income from property, income from profession and income from other sources well within time. The assessment of the petitioner was completed on January 12, 1981, on a sum of Rs. 14,115 as per return and a sum of Rs. 510 was refunded to the assessee on July 19, 1980, as excess advance tax which was paid. The original assessment order dated January 12, 1981, has been referred to as annexure 1 to the writ petition. On February 6, 1985, the non-petitioner issued notice mentioning therein that he has reasons to believe that income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee that for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the notice issued by the respondent in pursuance of section 147(b) read with section 148 of the Act is bad in law, illegal and without jurisdiction and requested that the same being vacated. It was further mentioned on behalf of the assessee that he may kindly be intimated at, to how there has been any concealment on his part when all the information which was relevant for the purpose of assessment to his knowledge had been voluntarily disclosed in the return and, hence, the question of any escapement of income chargeable to tax does not arise. The said reply on behalf of the assessee was duly submitted to the Revenue on February 13, 1985, vide annexure 3. On February 25, 1985, the assessee t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent on the Income-tax Officer to disclose the reasons for issuing the notice at the time of issuing the notice, once the assessee challenges the existence or validity of such reasons in a proceeding under article 226, the reasons should be disclosed at least in the affidavit-in-opposition. " Shri Mehta has also placed reliance on the decision of the apex court in the matter of Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd. v. ITO [1965] 57 ITR 637, in which the apex court has held as under : " Where, upon the issue of a notice under section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, a claim is made in a writ petition that the Income-tax Officer had no power to issue the notice and that the power is exercised not for any legitimate purpose for which it may ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
