JUDGMENT :

Gajendragadkar, CJI.

This appeal by special leave arises out of a writ petition Died by the appellant Lalji Haridas in the High Court of Gujarat under Article 226 of the Constitution in which he prayed for a writ including a writ in the nature of certiorari against Respondent 1, the Income Tax Officer, Ward D, Jamnagar, as well as Respondent 2, the Union of India, quashing two notices issued by Respondent 1 against him on 14th April, 1960 and the 7th July. 1960. He also prayed that the assessment order passed against him by the Income Tax Officer on 17th December, 1958 should likewise be quashed. This petition was dismissed by the High Court in limine without issuing notice to the respondents. Against the dismissal of his petition, the appellant applied for and obtained special leave from this Court and it is with the special leave thus granted to him that the appeal has come before us for final disposal today.

2. Having heard Mr Pathak on behalf of the appellant, we have come to the conclusion that there is no substance in this appeal and it must be dismissed with costs. In fact, this appeal illustrates how an assesses can prolong the assessment proceedings by adopting judicial proceedings available to him under the law and thereby postpone indefinitely the final disposal of the said proceedings by the income tax authorities.

3. The appellant is the resident of Jamnagar and the order of assessment as passed against him on 17th December, 1958 assessing him to pay income tax on Rs. 4,74,046. Before making this order of assessment, notice had been issued against the appellant on the 20th December, 1957 under Section 46(l)(a) of the Saurashtra Income tax Ordinance, 1949. This section corresponds to Section 34(1)(a) of the India Income Tax Act. It appears that Respondent 1 came to know the for Assessment Year 1949-50, a large amount of income received by the appellant had escaped assessment. That is why notice was issued against him calling upon him to make a return of his income for the relevant year. The appellant thereupon made a return showing an income of Rs. 46 for the year in question. Respondent 1 had come to know that several amounts had been credited m the account-books of the appellant and appeared to represent his income. On the 24th October, 1948, for instance, two sums of Rs. 1 lakh each had been credited in the names of M/s Bhagirath Madangopal & Co., Bombay, and Mulji Manilal Kamdar respectively. The latter amount was subsequently transferred to the account of another firm of M/s Bhagirath Kasat & Co. On the 7th of March, 1949, another sum of Rs. 1,80,000 was transferred to the said company. Further credits to the tune of Rs. 74,000 and Rs. 20,000 were also discovered. In submitting his return, the appellant attempted to say that these amounts did not represent his income at all and showed "Benami" transactions entered into by him on behalf of other persons. Respondent 1 was not satisfied with the explanation given by the appellant, and so, he passed the order of assessment as indicated above.

4. Against this order of assessment, the appellant preferred an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income tax, Rajkot. Before the Appellate Authority, the appellant contended that all his witnesses were not allowed to be examined by Respondent 1 and that some of the evidence which was being given by his witnesses was also not properly recorded. The Appellate Authority partly accepted his contention and by its order passed on the 3rd September, 1959, it remanded the proceedings to Respondent 1 and directed him to submit a report after examining the witnesses whom the appellant wanted to cite. Even while making this order of remand, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner commented on the fact that the appellant appeared to be determined to adopt dilatory proceedings and delay as much as he can the final disposal of the proceedings taken against him.

5. After the matter was thus remanded to Respondent 1, the ap