TMI Blog1958 (2) TMI 49X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... their acts to the procedure laid down under the Act and to complete the assessment of the petitioner in G.I. No. T.C. 161. V. 1955-56, according to law without any further delay. The petitioner is a resident of Vijayawada, at which place he has been dealing in radios and electrical goods since July, 1951. In order to appreciate the contentions raised in the writ petition, it would be useful to set out the admitted facts in their chronological sequence. On the 8th August, 1955, the Income-tax Officer, who was in charge of the Special Survey Circle, at the time, made an inspection of the account books of the petitioner at his shop. On the following day, the first respondent issued a notice to the petitioner, under section 22(2) of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... On the 28th October, 1955, the petitioner submitted his reply to the letter of the first respondent, dated the 23rd September, 1955. On the 12th January, 1956, the first respondent again wrote to the petitioner asking for details of the amounts lent by him to his parents. This he was asked to submit on or before the 16th January, 1956. On the 16th January, 1956, the petitioner's authorised representative asked for time till the end of January, 1956. On the 2nd February, 1956, the first respondent reminded the petitioner with regard to his letter, dated 12th January, 1956, and asked him to produce his books. This was followed by two letters by the petitioner to the first respondent on the 6th February, 1956, and 7th March, 1956, and a sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut not because he has any assessable income. The complaint made by the petitioner, therefore, is that under the guise of exercising the powers conferred on him under the Income-tax Act, the officer and his superior were in fact trying to settle their old scores with his father and that this court should, therefore, interfere and issue appropriate directions to them to keep themselves within the limits and bounds of the Income-tax Act. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the respondents that both the officers have since been transferred from Vijayawada and that they are now serving at other places. The present officer serving at Vijayawada has filed a counter-affidavit denying the allegations contained in the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nature of the proceedings and has relied particularly on two circumstances as affording clinching proof of the want of bona fides on the part of the officer. He has invited my attention to the provisions of section 22(4) of the Income-tax Act which reads: 22. (4) The Income-tax officer may serve on any person who has made a return under sub-section (1) or upon whom a notice has been served under sub-section (2) a notice requiring him, on a date to be therein specified, to produce, or cause to be produced, such accounts or documents as the Income-tax Officer may require, or to furnish in writing and verified in the prescribed manner information in such form and on such points or matters (including, with the previous approval of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is difficult to justify this notice as a reasonable notice. He has submitted that, in fact, the practice of the Department is to give at least a month's notice and that in any view of the matter, a reasonable time should have been given by the officer. The learned Advocate-General has further commented upon the fact that a notice was issued to the Hindustan Ideal Insurance Co. as also to the landlord of the petitioner, both of which he has characterised as not being bona fide and were intended to serve a collateral purpose. The officer has explained that the notice to the Hindustan Ideal Insurance Co. was given in order to verify the facts stated by the petitioner in his return and that the proceeding against the landlord of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee to produce his account books for a period of eight years, cannot, even after giving every conceivable credit to the good intentions of the officer, be called reasonable. After considering the material placed before me, I cannot help giving expression to a feeling left in my mind that the officer has taken the risk of over-stepping the line in the interests of what he perhaps considered to be efficient administration . Having said this, I must now address myself to the question as to whether the relief sought for by the petitioner can be granted in this petition. To a request made by me to explain the exact scope of the relief claimed by him in the writ petition, the learned Advocate General elucidated the matter by st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
