SUSANTA CHATTERJI, J.

( 1 ) THE present rule was issued on February 9, 1982, t. the instance of the writ petitioner praying, inter alia, for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash three notices all dated January 21, 1982, under Section 154/155 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), one each in respect of the assessment years 1975-76 to 1977-78 issued by the Income-tax Officer, "a" Ward, Nadia, arid for other consequential reliefs. It is stated that at all material times the petitioner owned two tea estates, one known as "radharani Tea and Estate in Dooars" and the other known as "krishna Kali Tea Estate in Assam". The assessment years concerned in the writ application are 1975-76 to 1977-78. It is alleged that on November 17, 1981, the petitioner received three notices under Section 154/155 whereby respondent No. 1 proposed to rectify certain alleged mistakes in the assessment order for the said assessment years and was requested by respondent No. 1 to show cause by November 23, 1981. The nature of the mistakes proposed to be rectified will appear from the notices. Thereafter, by a letter dated December 7, 1981, the petitioner is alleged to have pointed out to respondent No. 1 that the three undated notices suffered from various infirmities. However, the petitioner moved a writ application challenging the said three notices and by order dated January 17, 1982, Dipak Kumar Sen J. (as His Lordship then was) was pleased to dispose of the same by directing the respondent not to give effect to the three notices. Again on January 25, 1982, the petitioner received three notices all dated January 21, 1982, issued by respondent No. 1, one each in respect of the assessment years 1975-76 to 1977-78. According to the petitioner, the Income-tax Officer can exercise his jurisdiction and/or authority to rectify any mistake which is apparent from the record and not otherwise. Further, under Section 154 (3), an amendment which has the effect of enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee shall not be made under the said section unless the authority concerned has given notice to the assessee of its intention so to do and has allowed the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. It is also stated that the petitioner can be assessed under the Act only on the income assessable under the Act and not on an agricultural income. Under section 10 (1) of the Act, in computing the total income of the previous year of any person, agricultural income shall not be included at all. Under Section 32 (2) of the Act, where in the assessment of the assessee effect cannot be given to any allowance referred to therein in any previous year, owing to there being no profits or gains chargeable for that previous year, or owing to the profits and/or gains chargeable being less than the allowance, the allowance or part of the allowance to which effect has not been given shall be carried forward subject to the provisions of Section 72 (2) and Section 73 (3) of the Act. Elaborating in detail, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition again on the ground that inasmuch as the separate sheets enclosed with the three impugned notices do not bear any signature and/or seal of respondent No. 1 and the same are not authenticated and/or validated by respondent No. 1, the said three separate sheets are of no effect and as such cannot form part of the impugned notices, There is no mistake in the assessment order dated March 28, 1978, for the assessment year 1975-76, the assessment order dated September 10, 1979, for the assessment year 1976-77 and the assessment order dated September 19, 1982, for the assessment year 1977-78. The impugned notices are, according to the petitioner, vague and lack in material particulars and are wholly unintelligible and do not give the required information either to give any reply or to show any cause effectively and as such the said notices and all proceedings thereunder a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document