JUDGMENT

SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. :— This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated 21st May, 1971 of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court (reported in 1973 Tax LR 1533).

2. This appeal raises the familiar problem whether there are grounds for reopening a completed assessment but that question arises under rather peculiar circumstances. The assessment year concerned is 1962-63. The assessee/ appellant had filed its return in November, 1962 showing an income of Rs. 2,092/- as its profit. According to the assessee/appellant, a mistake had occurred in the preparation of the return, inasmuch as the profit of Rs. 10,718.46 arising from construction works had been left out from the return. But it appears that along with the original return, a copy of the Balance-sheet and Profit and Loss Account was filed by the appellant. In the Profit and Loss Account, the profit from construction work was indicated. The Income-tax Officer made an assessment on 27th November, 1963 and it appears from the assessment order that the profit from the construction work was taken into account in making the assessment. The assessee/appellant, however, filed a revised return showing a general profit of Rs. 2,092/- as also profit from the construction work aggregating Rs. 12,797/-.

3. It is important in this connection to bear in mind that the return was filed by the assessee/appellant on 29th November, 1962. This was received in the receiving section of the Department and a stamp had been duly put thereon in token of the receipt. It further appears that a revised return dated 2nd August, 1963 was received, as shown in the endorsement, on 3rd December, 1963. The original assessment was made on 27th November, 1963.

4. In the revised return, the assessee/appellant had shown a general profit of Rs. 2,092/- as also the profit from the construction work aggregating to Rs. 12,797.65. After having made the assessment order on the basis of the first return, the Income-tax Officer issued a notice to the assessee under S. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act). It is stated that the ground for issue of this notice was that the revised return was not be fore the Income-tax Officer when the assessment order was originally made but came to her possession later on when it was forwarded to her on 3rd December, 1963. On receipt of the notice, the assessee wrote challenging the Income-tax Officers jurisdiction and thereafter not being satisfied moved an application under Art. 226 of the, Constitution and obtained a rule nisi which was ultimately discharged by order dated 30th April, 1970.

5. The appellant/assessee preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of the said High Court.

6. The Division Bench discussed several contentions urged before it. It appears from the affidavit of the Income-tax Officer who made the assessment, Mrs. Mahajan, that the return was filed on 29th November, 1962. The return showed a business loss of Rs. 4,422/- and dividend income of Rs. 6,519/. The total income shown was Rs. 2,095.26. The said Income-tax Officer stated that the file was transferred to her on 9th October, 1963 and the file number and other particulars were duly intimated to the assessee. It was further stated by the said Income-tax Officer that on 3rd December, 1963, she had received from the Income-tax Officer, E Ward a return filed before that officer by the assessee showing an income of Rs. 12,797.65 against Rs. 2,096.26 shown as income in the original return.

7. The said Income-tax Officer has further stated that the assessment for the year 1962-63 was completed on 30th November, 1963. At the time of making the assessment, she had before her only the return dated 29th November, 1962 showing an income of Rs. 2,096.26. On 3rd December, 1963 i.e. to say after completing the assessment she had received from the Income-tax Officer, E Ward a return showing an income of Rs. 12,797.65. The second or the revised return, however,