9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (7) TMI 20X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as conducted of her premises and safe deposit lockers in January, 1982, and gold ornaments and jewellery were seized. On April 14, 1982, an order was made by the first respondent under Section 132(5) retaining the seized assets and ordering the addition of an amount of Rs. 3,40,190 credited to the petitioner's savings account on the ground that it was an unexplained receipt. On December 7, 1982, an order was made under section 132(11) of the Act by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Investigation) which accepted the petitioner's explanation in respect of the seized articles as also the sum of Rs. 3,40,000. The order dated April 14, 1982, was, accordingly, vacated. On April 21, 1982, and September 21, 1982, the petitioner was issued notices t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this petition by the first respondent who was the Income-tax Officer, Assessment Circle. By letter dated January 5, 1983, the first respondent informed the petitioner that her case had been transferred to his charge. On February 4, 1983, the first respondent asked the petitioner to produce her books of account, if maintained, her bank pass book and evidence to show that amounts were remitted to her from abroad from income earned abroad. The demand was made in respect of the assessment years 1979-80 to 1982-83. On February 23, 1983, the petitioner's advocate wrote to the first respondent stating that he had no jurisdiction to issue the impugned notices under section 147 and also to request him to convey to them the reasons for the proposed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se years were already completed by the 10th Income-tax Officer, Survey Circle-I." It is not often that the court looks to see who has made an affidavit-in reply, and I dare say that that is true also of counsel. For quite some time, arguments at the Bar proceeded upon the basis, having regard to what is stated in the aforesaid paragraphs, that the affidavit-in-reply had been made by the first respondent. Chance brought to notice the fact that the affidavit-in-reply was in fact made by one Ibrahim Ahmed Khan, Income-tax Officer, Ward 21(6). It appears that the intention was that the first respondent should make the affidavit and his name is in typescript. It is scored off in ink and the name and designation of Khan are substituted. For the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s beyond belief that the reasons could have been stated in the manner they are. The statement commences upon the pro forma, upon engrossed paper, of an order sheet and is written in ink between its printed lines so that it is virtually indecipherable. The second page of the statement is on the reverse of that sheet. The third page thereof is a blank sheet of white paper. Upon the reverse thereof is the fourth page, or the third page, depending upon how one looks at it, of the statement. At a certain stage on that page the first respondent (as I think) has initialled the statement. Thereafter, he states that he has reason to believe that by reason of the omission or failure on the part of the assessee to make a return under section 139 and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
