JUDGMENT

ORDER:- Sri Kalyankumar Ray, a tax lawyer from Calcutta, has preferred these petitions raising an attractive and ingenious but, in our opinion, technical and untenable plea. We, therefore, dismissed the petitions on 26-7-91 but stated we would give our reasons later. Hence this order.

2. The petitions arise out of the petitioners assessments under the Income-tax Act, 1961, (the Act). The point raised by Sri Ray, which is common to the two assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83, arises this way. For the assessment year 1981-82, the Income-tax Officer (I.-T.O.) passed an "assessment order" in which he computed the assessees total income for the year at Rs. 1,89,320.

Then he added:

"Assessed as above. The assessee paid Rs. 1, 12,4 10 under S. 2 10 and Rs. 26,000 against C.D.S. Allow credit for T.D.S. of Rs. 768/-. Issue D.N. and Challan."

This was followed up by a demand notice u/S. 156 of the Act served on the assessee stating that, "for the assessment year 1981-82, a sum of Rs. 1,01,303, details of which are given on the reverse, have been determined as payable by you". This is somewhat inaccurate, for the back of the notice contained the following details:

Gross Demand Rs. 1,01,303

Less: Paid u/s 210 Rs. 1,12,410

Balance refundable = Rs. 11,107

Less: Adjusted with demand for A.Y. 1982-83 Rs. 2,120

Balance refundable Rs. 8,987

Less: Adjusted demand for 1970-71 Rs.2203

Add: 220(2) Int. Rs.1189 Rs. 3,392

Rs. 5,595

Less: Adjusted demand for 1968-69 Rs.3237

Add: 220(2) Int. Rs.1748 Rs. 4,985

Rs. 610

Less: Adjusted demand for 1957-58 Rs. 610

NIL

The position regarding assessment year 1982-83 was similar. The amount adjusted against the demand for this assessment year was the payment made under Ss. 210 and 140A leaving a sum of Rs. 2,120/- which was adjusted against the refund due to the assessee for assessment year 1981-82. Both assessment orders and (nil) demand notices were dated 30-8-83 and both were signed/ initialed by the I.T.O.

3. The assessee has not voiced any grievance against the computation and adjustments made except that he had not been awarded interest u/ s 214 of the Act. His short point is that, under the statute, the "assessment order" itself should contain the calculations of the tax, interest etc. and of the net sum payable by/ refundable to the assessee. These details, he urges, cannot be relegated to the demand notice. Failing compliance with this statutory requirement, he contends, the assessment orders should be held to be void and of no effect and, consequently, annulled. This contention was not accepted by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The assessees applications under S. 256(1) and (2) of the Act were also dismissed. The assessee seeks special leave against the High Courts orders declining to call for reference and, by way of abundant caution, also files petitions for special leave to appeal to this Court - which are naturally belated since the assessee awaited the outcome of his applications under S. 256 - directly from the Tribunals orders. We see no reason to entertain the second set of appeals which are considerably beyond time. However, we are also of opinion that the Tribunals decision is correct and that the High Court was also justified in declining to call for a reference.

4. Sri S. Padmanabhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, invited attention to the language of S. 143(3) of the Act which mandates that the I.T.O. "shall, by an order in writing, make an assessment of the total income or loss of the assessee, and determine the sum payable by him on the basis of such assessment". The Department pointing to the placement of a comma after the word "assessee" suggested before the Tribunal that an order in writing is required only for the assessment of the income or loss and that the determination of the sum payable can be an independent process not necessarily in writing. The suggestion seems plausible but is not really tenable. As pointed out for the petitioner,