TMI Blog1975 (7) TMI 9X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore him. The facts leading on to the two rules can be put in a short compass. Two petitions of complaint were filed by the Union of India, on the complaint of Sri Haramohan Chowdhury, Income-tax Officer, " F " Ward, District-III(I), Calcutta, under section 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1967-68 and 1968-69. The case as made out in the petition of complaint, inter alia, is that after the retirement of the petitioner, on or about the 27th December, 1961, he has been in extensive legal practice and had large amount of consultation work and chamber practice in addition to his pension ; that he acquired large amount of wealth by way of immovable properties, fixed deposits and moneys in banks but was systematically co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alf of the opposite party No. 1, Sri Haramohan Chowdhury, affirmed on June 4, 1975, and June 5, 1975, respectively, and a supplementary affidavit on behalf of the petitioner, affirmed on the 13th June, 1975, were thereafter filed. The submissions of Mr. J. P. Mitter, who appeared in person, are of five dimensions. Firstly, that the present proceedings based on the complaints filed on January 27, 1975, are premature and contrary to the principles of natural justice in view of the notice dated January 15, 1975, issued by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, Range-III, Calcutta, and served on the petitioner calling upon him to appear before him on February 26, 1975, and show cause as to why a penalty should not be imposed on him under sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 73 (SC), T. S. Baliah v. T. S. Rangachari, Income-tax Officer [1969] 72 ITR 787 (SC), Assistant Collector of Customs v. L. R. Melwani, AIR 1970 SC 962. Mr. Balai Lal Pal, Senior Advocate (with Messrs. Biswaranjan Ghoshal and Ajit Kumar Sengupta, Advocates), appearing on behalf of the complainant-opposite party No. 1, Sri Haramohan Chowdhury, in both the rules joined issue on all the contentions raised by Mr. Mitter and in support of his submissions he relied on the relevant provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as bearing on his submissions and referred to a long catena of judicial decisions in [1967] 64 ITR 456 (Cal) (Anadi Nath Chakraborty v. Commissioner of Income-tax) ; [1969] 72 ITR 787 (SC) (T. S. Baliah v. T. S. Rangachari, Income- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the fourth branch of Mr. Mitter's contentions is not warranted in law as the facts referred to are not on the record and as such the point at issue cannot be determined at this stage. We take the first contention raised by Mr. Mitter as it goes to the very root of the matter, affecting the maintainability of the proceedings under section 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The steps of Mr. Mitter's reasoning in this behalf are that he was directed to show cause on February 26, 1975, by a relevant notice dated January 15, 1975, sent by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Range III, Calcutta. The said notice is attached to the supplementary affidavit as annexure "A". Mr. Mitter contended that the complaints thereafter fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contrary to the principles of natural justice. The first dimension of Mr. Mitter's contention accordingly succeeds. The second dimension of Mr. Mitter's submission relates to the non-completion of the assessment. Mr. Mitter has contended that it clearly appears from the affidavits and also the materials on the record that the assessments have not been completed. As to the. assessment year 1967-68 there has been no assessment of income ex parte or otherwise and as such there cannot be any finding either on facts or in law on which to found the complaint. The confusion, according to him, is worse confounded in view of the provision of a revised return as enjoined under section 139(5) before such assessment is made and the provisions of se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Mitter's contention we do not consider it necessary to enter into and decide the other branches of Mr. Mitter's submissions, which were strongly contested by Mr. Balai Lal Pal as being unwarranted and untenable and a number of cases were referred that any such consideration is neither expedient nor necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case and the findings already arrived at. One other point raised by Mr. Pal now abides our consideration, viz., the point of maintainability of the present applications as being premature. Mr. Pal relied in this context on the case of R. P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866. He referred to the observations of Mr. Justice Gajendragadkar (as his Lordship then was) who delivered the judgme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
