PATNA HIGH COURT
Sachchidanand Jha and Aftab Alam JJ.
Rina Sen
Versus
Commissioner Of Income Tax
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 460 of 1992 ;
Decided On : AUGUST 18, 1998
INCOME TAX - Power to issue commission - Conditions precedent - Existence of pending proceeding - Sec. 131(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner received a notice under Sec. 131(1)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the ascertainment of the cost of construction of a house by the Assistant Valuation Officer, at the behest of the Income-tax Officer. The petitioner challenged the validity of the notice, contending that an investigation of the kind can be made only in connection with and during the pendency of a proceeding, and inasmuch as no proceeding was pending (or can be initiated) the proposed investigation was an abuse of the process of law and liable to be quashed.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the power to issue commission under Sec. 131(1)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, can be exercised only in connection with a pending proceeding. The court further held that the service of the impugned notice on March 22, 1992, would not be deemed to be initiation of proceeding, as the petitioner had challenged the validity of the very same notice and its service cannot therefore be interpreted as amounting to initiation of any proceeding.
Issues: 1. Whether the power to issue commission under Sec. 131(1)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, can be exercised only in connection with a pending proceeding? 2. Whether the service of the impugned notice on March 22, 1992, would be deemed to be initiation of proceeding?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on the provisions of Sec. 131(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which states that the Assessing Officer, Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Deputy Commissioner, Commissioner (Appeals) and Chief Commissioner or Commissioner shall, for the purposes of this Act, have the same powers as are vested in a court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), when trying a suit in respect of the following matters, namely: (a) discovery and inspection; (b) enforcing the attendance of any person, including any officer of a banking company and examining him on oath; (c) compelling the production of books of account and other documents; and (d) issuing commissions. 2. The court also relied on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Dwijendra Lal Brahmachari V/s. New Central Jute Mills Co. Ltd. [1978] 112 ITR 568, wherein it was held that the existence of a pending proceeding was a condition precedent and sine qua non for the exercise of power under Sec. 131(1).
Final Decision: The court quashed the impugned notice dated January 24, 1992, and allowed the writ petition without any order as to costs.
Sachchidanand Jha, J.
1. The proposition raised for consideration on which, it \s said, there is no precedent of this court, is straight and simple enough to admit of any doubt or dispute. There may of course be dispute regarding its application in the facts and circumstances of the particular case. The petitioner has been served with a notice issued in terms of Sec. 131(1)(d) of the Income-tax Act (in short, "the Act"), in the matter of ascertainment of cost of construction of a house by the Assistant Valuation Officer, the Income-tax Department at the behest of the Income-tax Officer, Ward-III, Ranchi. She seeks quashing of the notice and a declaration that the proposed investigation is illegal and without jurisdiction principally on the ground that an investigation of the kind can be made only in connection with and during pendency of a proceeding, and inasmuch as no proceeding is pending (or can be initiated) the proposed investigation is an abuse of the process of law and liable to be quashed. The relevant facts are as follows .
2. The petitioner purchased four kathas of land being portion of plot No. 1175 at Village Hesal (Aryapuri), Ratu Road, Ranchi, for a consideration of Rs. 2,000 on March 6, 1965. She got her name mutated in the revenue records of the State in Case No. 786 R-27 of 1965-66 by the Circle Officer, Ranchi. In furtherance of the said order of mutation a correction slip was issued in her name on January 4, 1966, and she was granted rent receipt. On December 28, 1966, the petitioner applied for permission to build a new house before the Executive Officer of the Ranchi Municipality along with a building plan. Permission was granted vide letter No. 376/B/Engineering of 1966 on July 15, 1967. It is said that after the sanction of the building plan, the petitioner started construction of the house some time in the year 1967 and constructed a major portion on the ground floor some time in the month of September, 1968. She thereafter applied for electric connection before the Ranchi Electric Supply Company Ltd. After due enquiry and verification an estimate was served on her on October 28/31, 1968. After deposit of the requisite amount on December 23, 1968, she was granted electric connection vide Consumer No. G. 3579. The petitioner in course of time constructed the second storey in the month of December, 1973. The total cost of construction of the entire building, according to her, was Rs. 30,000 approximately. She has been assessed to holding tax, etc., by the Ranchi Municipality, vide Holding No. 495 M2 with respect to the house since 1973-74. The petitioner has annexed documents in support of her above-stated case regarding purchase of the land, mutation of name, sanction of building plan, grant of electric connection and municipal receipts.
3. Pursuant to a notice issued by the Income-tax Officer, Circle-I, Ward-"D", Ranchi, dated June 3, 1982, under Secs. 139(2) and 133 of the Act, the petitioner filed a return of income for the assessment year 1982-83 relevant to the accounting year 1981-82 on August 27, 1982, showing her total income at Rs. 5,714 in which she showed rental income from the said house apart from other income. According to the petitioner, her income never exceeded the exemption limit allowed under the Act and, therefore, there was no occasion for her to file any return of income or to show the rental income from that house. The abovesaid return filed on August 27, 1982, was finally accepted after hearing under Sec. 143(3) of the Act. The petitioners case of receiving rental income from the said house property was thus accepted without any objection. She did not file the return of her income thereafter up to the assessment year 1989-90 as her income, according to her, remained below the taxable limit. For the assessment year 1990-91, however, when her total income exceeded the taxable limit she filed the return on August 31, 1990, showing the total income at Rs. 18,300 as rental inc
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.