SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J.

( 1 ) FOR the assessment year 1956-57 the petitioner was assessed on the 25th August, 1960, under Section 23 (3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. This assessment was made pursuant to a voluntary return filed by the petitioner. In the said return it was the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had sold his wife's ornaments, received at the time of her marriage, at Rs. 1,03,000 in October, 1955, and March, 1956. Upon that basis the assessment was made. Thereafter, on the 25th May, 1967, a notice was received by the petitioner which is the subject-matter of challenge in this application. By the said notice the petitioner was asked by the Income-tax Officer, E-Ward, District I, Calcutta, to give the particulars of the persons to whom gold ornaments were sold. The petitioner was further asked to show cause why the income-tax assessment for the assessment year 1956-57 should not be reopened under Section 147 (a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the petitioner was also required to comply with the said notice by the 31st May, 1967. The petitioner was requested to produce evidence in support of the above statement made in the original return. Subsequent to this a notice was issued under Section 131 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, directing the petitioner to produce certain evidence. However, the said notice dated the 8th September, 1967, under Section 131 (2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is not the subject-matter of challenge in this application. I need not advert to the said notice any further. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents have no authority to issue the impugned notice dated the 25th May, 1967, and ask the petitioner to produce evidence or to show cause why the assessment for the assessment year 1956-57 should not be reopened under Section 147 (a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Income-tax Officer has filed an affidavit-in-opposition to this rule nisi. It has been stated therein that the assessee was assessed for the first time for the year 1956-57 on the voluntary return filed by the assessee and the assessee had filed a certificate from a certain company showing sale at a certain price which was accepted at the time of the original assessment. But, subsequent thereto, the information had come to the income-tax authorities that there was no such firm which had given the certificate and no trade licence was given to the firm. From the said information it appeared to the Income-tax Officer that the evidence produced by the assessee was false and fabricated. Acting upon that, the Income-tax Officer had issued this notice to the assessee in order to give the assessee an opportunity to substantiate his assertions he made at the time of the original assessment.

( 2 ) APPEARING for the assessee, Dr. Debi Prosad Pal, learned counsel, contended that there was no provision of law which entitled the Income-tax Officer to require the assessee to produce evidence to satisfy the Income-tax Officer whether, the assessment should or should not be reopened. According to Dr. Pal, the Income-tax Officer according to certain information can reopen under certain conditions the assessment, but the Income-tax Officer cannot, according to Dr. Pal, carry on investigation and request the assessee to assist him for the purpose of reopening the assessment. The assessment once made cannot be reopened except in the circumstances mentioned in Section 147 and upon the conditions contained in Sections subsequent thereto and within the time mentioned in the Act. Dr. Pal referred me to the decision in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Khemchand Ramdas, [1938] 6 I. T. R. 414 (P. C. ). He relied on the following observations of the Judicial Committee appearing at page 424 of the report:"when once a final assessment is arrived at, it cannot in their Lordships' opinion be reopened except in the circumstances detailed in Sections 34 and 35 of the Act (to which reference is made hereafter) and within the time

Click Here to Read the rest of this document