9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (12) TMI 31X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on August 20, 1975. The assessment was completed on March 21, 1977, and the assessee was assessed on a total income of Rs. 18,539. On September 23, 1983, i.e., after a period of six years and six months, the Income-tax Officer had issued a notice under section 148 on the ground that the assessee failed to disclose fully and truly certain material facts necessary for his assessment for that year and that certain income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The assessee was asked to show cause as to why reassessment cannot be made. Pursuant to the said notice, the assessee filed a return on October 24, 1983, showing the very same income, which was assessed earlier. He also made a request to indicate the reasons that prompted the Departme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... late authority (Gold Control Administrator), by his order dated June 28, 1981, confirmed the finding that the assessee was the owner of the gold, that the appellate authority also confirmed the order of confiscation and reduced the penalty from Rs. 6,00,000 to Rs. 3,00,000 and that, on the basis of these two orders, the Income-tax Officer had reason to believe that certain income had escaped assessment due to the failure of the assessee to mention these facts. It is further stated in the counter-affidavit that the impugned notice was issued after obtaining the necessary sanction from the Commissioner of Income-tax. To appreciate the point involved, it is necessary to refer to section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which reads as follo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rsons by the Central Excise officials belonged to the assessee and that the said order was confirmed on appeal by the Gold Control Administrator. In fact, the proposals sent up by the Income-tax Officer to the Commissioner of Income-tax also mentioned these facts. But it appears from the counter-affidavit itself that these orders were set aside in revision by the Government of India, by its order dated October 7, 1982. Apparently, the Income-tax Officer was not aware of this fact and this is more true because, in his proposals to the Commissioner of Income-tax for obtaining his sanction, the Income-tax Officer refers to this matter and says that revision is pending against these orders, while, in fact, by the time he sent up these proposals ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on no material.
It is submitted by Mr. Suryanarayana Murthy, the learned standing counsel for the Department, that the proceedings regarding confiscation of gold are still pending and the enquiry in regard to the ownership of the gold is in progress. As and when such enquiry is completed, it is open to the Government to take such appropriate action in accordance with law and in accordance with the findings arrived at the enquiry. But, so far as the present notice is concerned, we are of the view that it cannot be upheld and it must be held to be void as it is based on no valid material.
For the foregoing reasons, we quash the impugned notice. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
