Calcutta High Court
Vijay Mallya vs Assistant Commissioner, Income Tax And ... on 26 September, 2002
Equivalent citations: (2003)1CALLT530A(HC), (2003)185CTR(CAL)233
JUDGMENT Dipak Prokash Kundu, J.
1. In the present writ proceeding the writ petitioner has challenged the notices (1) dated 10.10.1995, (2) dated 30.11.1995 and (3) dated 8.1.1996 all were issued in connection with the assessment proceedings for the assessment years 1992-93 and 1993-94. The petitioner has also challenged the notice dated 8.1.1996 issued under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), in respect of the assessment year 1989-90.
2. From the aforesaid notice dated 8.1.1996 it is evident that the said notice was issued under Section 154 of the said Act with a view to rectify a mistake apparent from the record. It is evident from the assessment order dated 30.3.1992 for the assessment year 1989-90 that the residential status of the writ petitioner the assessee, was held and determined as "non-resident" within the meaning of Section 2(30) of the said Act. The relevant part of the aforesaid assessment order dated 30.3.1992 is set out hereunder;
"Residential status of the assessee:
In the return filed, the assessee has shown his status as nonresident. The A/R filed a statement showing that during the relevant previous year the assessee was in India for 172 days and there abroad for the remaining 193 days. This verified with reference to copy of pass port produced by the A/R. Hence in view of provision of Section 6(1)(a) of IT Act the assessee was not a resident for the relevant previous year".
3. In my opinion while deciding the residential status of an assessee the Assessing Officer should consider the provisions of both Sections 6(1)(a) and 6(1)(c) of the said Act and this is a mandatory requirement of law. An assessee may not be a "resident" of India under Section 6(1)(a) but may be a "resident" of India under Section 6(1)(c) of the said Act. In W.P. No. 213 of 1996 (Vijay Mallya v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Investigation Circle-4, Calcutta and Ors.) by judgment and order dated 10.9.2002 I held that an assessee may be a "resident" in India either under Section 6(1)(a) or Section 6(1)(c) of the said Act. I held that an Assessing Officer while holding an assessee as "non-resident" within the meaning of Section 2(30) of the said Act, is duty bound to record his reasons as to why he is not holding the assessee as "resident" either under Section 6(1)(a) or Section 6(1)(c) of the said Act. I further held that if the Assessing Officer fails to record the reasons why he is not holding the assessee as a "resident" of India either under Section 6(1)(a) or under Section 6(1)(c) of the said Act then such failure would be a "mistake apparent from the record" which would call for rectification. In Commissioner of Income Tax v. Kesaria Tea Co. Ltd., reported at (1998) 233 ITR 700 the Division Bench of Kerala High Court held that overlooking a mandatory provision of law which allows no discretion to the taxing authorities is a mistake from the record.
4. The learned senior advocate for the writ petitioner argued that while accepting the claim of an assessee regarding his residential status the Assessing Officer is not required to record reasons as to why he is accepting the claim of the assessee. For example, he argued, that in the instant case the writ petitioner claimed that he is a "non-resident" within the meaning of Section 2(30) of the said Act and the said claim was accepted by the Assessing Officer. The learned advocate argued that the Assessing Officer was not duty bound to record his reasons why he was not holding the writ petitioner as "resident" of India either under Section 6(1)(a) or under Section 6(1)(c) of the said Act. I do not accept this argument of the learned advocate for the petitioner because I am of the view that determination of residential status of an assessee requires mandatory consideration of both Section 6(1)(a6(1)(c)) and Section 6(1)(c) of the said Act and without consideration both the said sections Assessing Officer has no competence and/or authority to hold the assessee as "non-resident" under Section 2(30) of the said Act. The learned advocate for the petitioner argued that if the scheme of the said Act is taken into consideration then it will be seen that right of appeals has been conferred only upon the assessee and not upon the taxing authority and, therefore, recording of reasons by the Assessing Officer is required only when the decision goes against the assessee. True under the scheme of the said Act only an assessee has right of appeals and taxing authority has no right of appeal but, in my opinion, that does not absolve the authorities functioning under the provisions of the said Act to discharge their functions in accordance with the provisions of the said Act. It should not be ignored that power has been conferred upon some of the functionaries under the said Act who can suo motu call for the records and pass necessary orders in accordance with the provisions of the said Act. Determination of residential status of an assessee is a very important matter having huge impact upon the collection of revenue. Therefore, the authorities functioning under the said Act who have been empowered to see that proper revenues are collected can suo motu call for the records to see whether question of residential status has been properly determined by the Assessing Officer or not. Unless the Assessing Officer records the reasons, even while accepting the claim of the assessee, it would not be possible for the competent authorities functioning under the said Act to see whether the Assessing Officer correctly decided the residential status of an assessee or not. Under the circumstances I am of the view that even when the Assessing Officer accepts the claim of an assessee and decides that the assessee is a "non-resident" under Section 2(30) of the said Act then also he is duty bound to record the reasons as to why he is not holding the assessee as a "resident" in India either under the provisions of Section 6(1)(a) or under Section 6(1)(c) of the said Act.
5. In the instant case it is evident that the Assessing Officer took into consideration the provisions only of Section 6(1)(a) of the said Act and did not take into consideration the provisions of Section 6(1)(c) of the said Act. Thus there is a "mistake apparent from the record" within the meaning of Section 154 of the said Act which calls for rectification. Under the circumstances I am of the view that the aforesaid notice dated 8.1.1996 is not bad in law and cannot be interfered with.
6. Challenging the three notices dated 10.10.1995, 30.11.1995 and 8.1.1996 the learned senior advocate for the petitioner argued that all those notices are illegal and bad in law. He argued that it is evident from the said notices that (1) the Assessing Officer has already pre-judged the residential status of the writ petitioner and (2) notice has been issued under Section 142(1) of the said Act determining the residential status and on both these counts the Assessing Officer acted beyond his power under Section 142(1) of the said Act. The learned senior advocate for the writ petitioner further argued that the aforesaid notices have been issued mala fide only with an object to know the global earning of the writ petitioner. The learned senior advocate for the writ petitioner also argued that the Assessing Officer in the aforesaid notices has determined the residential status of the writ petitioner which the Assessing Officer cannot do. He argued no piece-meal order can be passed and only one assessment has to be passed.
7. The learned advocate for the respondents argued that the aforesaid notices do not contain any order determining the residential status of the writ petitioner. The learned advocate for the respondents further argued that those notices may contain a tentative view of the Assessing Officer regarding residential status of the writ petitioner but do not contain conclusive view or decision of the Assessing Officer. He further argued that by the aforesaid three notices assessee has been given opportunity to explain why his residential status should not be determined as "resident" of India. The learned advocate for the respondents argued that under the provisions of Section 143(2), 142(1) and 142(2) of the said Act the Assessing Officer is under statutory obligation to make an enquiry before assessment. The learned advocate for the respondents argued that by issuing the aforesaid three notices the Assessing Officer only discharged his statutory duties for proper appreciation of the subject matter involved in the aforesaid three notices. It is necessary to have a look to the said three notices. The relevant part of the notice dated 10.10.1995 is set out herein below:
"Sub: Assessment proceedings for assessment years 1992-93 & 1993-94-Matter req:
Please refer to your reply and details submitted vide letter dated 23.9.95. Certain details regarding expenses in connection with your travel and stay in India, details of custom duty paid, details of Helicopter owned either by you or by the companies in which you are a Director, have not been filed by you which are awaited.
It is seen that you have claimed the status as resident, but not ordinarily resident accordingly, you have taken the stand not to furnish the details of your global income, global assets and return filed and tax paid in countries outside India. However, from the details of stay filed by you for various years, it appears that your claim of not ordinarily resident is misplaced and it needs clarification and rectification on your part.
Financial year:
No. of days stayed In India:
Residential Status 1981-82 Details not available Resident 1982-83
-do-
Resident 1983-84 210 days Resident 1984-85 289 days Resident 1985-86 261 days Resident 1986-87 290 days Resident 1987-88 227 days Resident 1988-89 172 days Resident under section 6(1)(c) 1989-90 142 days
-do-
1990-91 180 days
-do-
1991-92 163 days
-do-
1992-93 196 days Resident For the purpose of residential status for assessment years 1992-93 & 1993-94, it is clear from the above chart that you have stayed more than 60 days in the relevant previous year and more than 865 days in earlier 4 years preceding the previous year, and thus, the assessee is resident. For the purpose of being ordinary resident, both the condition stipulated in Section 6(6) have to be specified. It is seen that corresponding to the assessment years you were stayed more than 730 days in 7 preceding previous years and were resident in more than 9 out of 10 preceding years and therefore, the actual status is of you should be resident & ordinarily resident, and not resident but not ordinarily resident.
You are hereby given the opportunity to explain the claimed residential status and you are requested to furnish the details of global income, global assets, details of returned income and tax paid in countries outside India, as asked earlier. Your compliance to this letter is required within 7 days of the receipt of this letter".
8. The notice dated 30.11.1995 is a notice under Section 142(1) of the said Act, the said notice was issued along with an enclosure which is also dated 30.11.1995. The relevant part of the enclosure of the notice dated 30.11.1995 is set out hereinbelow:
"Sub: Assessment proceedings for Assessment years 92-93 & 93-94 In connection with assessment proceedings and various queries raised and reply and explanation submitted by you, the following points are being noted and a conclusion para has been arrived at--
(1) Residential Status:
Vide my letter dated 10.10.95, a show cause was served on you that you are an ordinary resident under Section 6(1)(c) read with Section 6(6) of IT Act. I have gone through your reply dated 170.95 on the matter. It is to clarify you that principle of res judicata does not apply to the income-tax proceedings and the mere fact that in some of the earlier years, residential status has been determined as nonresident does not mean that a mistake, if made earlier, will perpetuate for time to come. Moreover finding of an Assessing Officer is not binding on another Assessing Officer. So, your argument of being treated as non-resident in some of the earlier years does not preclude me from treating you resident, the correct status in those years. Furthermore, you have taken shelter of explanation (b) to Section 6(1)(c). It is to remind you that the particular explanation will apply to a person who comes on a visit to India. This explanation, if at all, could have applied only in one year i.e. previous year 1989-90. The "visitor" as understood in a common parlance is a person who goes or comes to see (person or place) as act of friendship or on ceremony or for curiosity. Having accepted this definition of visitor it is very difficult to treat you as visitor to India and to apply explanation (b) to Section 6(1)(c) in your case. You came to India for the purpose of your business for looking after your companies to attend meeting of Board of Directors to pursue or hobby of horse racing and breading and other serious and profit motivated occupations. In view of this, you cannot be treated as a visitor. Thus, it is seen that one of the conditions of Section 6(1) is satisfied and you are a resident in all the preceding 10 previous years. Even considering though not admitting and conceding that you were not a resident in financial year 1989-90, still it is seen that you are satisfying both the conditions of Section 6(6) i.e., your stay in India is more than 730 days in earlier 7 previous years and you are resident in 9 out of 10 previous years and therefore, there is no doubt that you were an ordinary resident earlier and you are an ordinarily resident for the years under consideration now. Your indirect contention of having work permit visa and having an appointment offer in financial year 1989-90 is not going to alter the situation. Primarily because the, job undertaken is an arrangement in the nature of disguise and is to hoodwink the provisions of Income Tax Act. However, you may furnish details & proof of service rendered in view of appointment letter furnished by you. Thus, you are treated as Ordinary Resident and your claim of residential status as resident but not ordinarily resident is hereby rejected.
(2) Details of global earning and global assets:
On earlier occasions through various letters and verbal query, you were asked to submit details of your world income and world assets. However, taking shelter to your claimed status of resident but not ordinarily resident, you had taken a stand that you are not required by any law to furnish the details called for. Your stand itself was contradictory and violative of provisions of Section 142(1) wherein Assessing Officer is empowered to call for full information in respect of income or loss of a person and to ask for production of all accounts or documents as the Assessing Officer may require. However, you are hereby required to furnish full details of your world income and world assets. More so, that you are an ordinarily resident and liable to pay tax in India on your world income under Section 5 of the IT Act. A notice under Section 142(1) is being issued for the purpose of compliance by you.
You are also required as asked earlier on various occasions to furnish details of income-tax and wealth tax returns filed and assessments made in U.K. or any other country outside India as support of your declared global income and global assets for the purpose now for the years under consideration. Your non-compliance to the above will be viewed seriously and while appropriate penalty proceedings may be undertaken I will be constrained to make an estimate of your world income and other related matter on my own pace and make a best of judgment assessment under Section 142 on above account.
(3) Export made by various companies of U.B. Limited and the group of companies:
You are required to furnish details of export of various produce like Bear and other IMF liquor by your various Breseries & Distilleries for the two years under consideration. You are also required to show the claim of deduction under Section 80HHC made by those companies in the IT. Returns in those years and to prove the remittance of foreign exchange on account of the export made in those years. These details covering total amount of export amount remitted within the meaning of Section 80HHC and deduction claimed under Section 80HHC are required to be furnished under Section 142(1), (4) Other details:
(a) Till date you have not furnished the details and proof of items imported on which the customs duty has been paid by you. .
(b) The Registers of claim guest houses maintained by various companies have not been furnished for verification and to arrive at the claim as to your status of stay in those Houses.
You are required to make complete compliance to the above information called for within 10 days of receipt of this letter or on or before 15th December, 1995.
Notice under Section 142(1) of IT Act, 1961 is issued for specific compliance."
9. The notice dated 8.1.1996 is also a notice under Section 142(1) of the said Act and along with the said notice an enclosure was attached. The enclosure is also dated 8.1.1996. The relevant part of the enclosure dated 8.1.1996 is set out hereinbelow:
"Sub: Assessment proceedings for Asstt. years 1992-93 & 1993-94. Kindly refer to your letter dated 24.12.95.
I have gone through the contents of the aforesaid letter and have carefully examined the same. I have also considered all your contentions made in the said letter or earlier letters dealing with this issue. The matter is very simply. You stayed in India in the financial year 1988-89 for a period of 172 days. Section 6(1) as it stood at the relevant point of time permitted the stay of 182 days for explanation (a) to Section 6(1)(c) and the stay of 90 days for explanation (b) to Section 6(1)(c) to qualify for the status of nonresident. Relevant portion of the said section is reproduced below:-
"6. For the purpose of this Act,-
(1) An individual is said to be resident in India in any previous year, if he-
(a) is in India in that year for a period or periods amounting in all to one hundred and eighty two days or more; or
(b) (***)
(c) having within the four years preceding that year been in India for a period or periods amounting in all to three hundred and sixty five days or more, is in India for a period or periods amounting in all to sixty days or more in that year.
Explanation: In the case of an individual, being a citizen of India,-
(a) who leaves India in any previous year for the purposes of employment outside India, the provisions of Sub-clause (c) shall apply in relation to that year as if for the words "one hundred and eighty two days" had been substituted;
(b) who, being outside India, conies on a visit to India in any previous year, the provisions of Sub-clause (c) shall apply in relation to that year as if for the words "ninety days" had been substituted".
You are claiming status of non-resident under explanation (b) to Section 6(1)(c). For this the maximum permissible stay to be nonresident was 90 days. You were in India for a period of 172 days. Thus, the benefit of this section is not available to you. I may remind you that you are claiming the benefit under explanation (b) to section 6(1)(c) and not under explanation (a) to Section 6(1)(c) and therefore, the permissible period of stay was only 90 days".
10. It is an admitted case that the writ petitioner has filed returns and notices under Section 143(2) of the said Act have been issued in respect of the assessment years 1992-93 and 1993-94.
11. The learned senior advocate for the writ petitioner argued that in the aforesaid three notices the residential status of the writ petitioner has been finally determined by the Assessing Officer though no final order of assessment has been passed. Relying upon a Division Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in Debt Prasad Malviya v. Commissioner of Income Tax, United Provinces, Lucknow, reported at (1952) 22 ITR 539 the learned senior advocate for the petitioner argued that Section 143 of the said Act contemplates that Assessing Officer makes a complete assessment on the basis of the total income of an assessee and it is not open to the Assessing Officer to make piece-meal assessments. The relevant lines from the reported decision in Debi Prasad Malviya case (supra) are set out hereinbelow;
"The portion quoted above clearly indicates that the Income Tax Officer knew that the Kanpur Iron Supply Company and the U.P. Steel Company had made profits. He also knew that a portion of this profit which had come to the share of the assessee will have to be included in the total income. He was, however, anxious to finish the assessment on the basis of the materials before him. Section 23 of the Indian Income Tax Act contemplates that the Income Tax Officer should make a complete assessment on the basis of the total income of an assessee. It is not open to him to make assessments piecemeal and in a case where the Income Tax Officer has proceeded to assess one part of the income and has decided to assess the rest of the income on a later date he cannot reply on he provisions of Section 34 for the purpose of reopening the assessment".
12. The learned senior advocate for the writ petitioner argued that before any notice under Section 142(1) of the said Act is issued or could be issued calling upon an assessee to produce any document or information the Assessing Officer must be satisfied that such a document or information would be needed for the purpose of making assessment or in other words the document or information must have its bearing on the pending assessment and that the Assessing Officer requires a document or information to be so produced for the purpose of making the assessment. The learned senior advocate for the writ petitioner argued that to fulfill these requirements the Assessing Officer must apply his mind because without such application of mind he can never arrive at any bona fide satisfaction. He argued that Assessing Officer never acquires jurisdiction to issue a notice under Section 142(1) of the said Act for production of any document or information until he on application of his own mind arrives at a satisfaction that the document or information so directed to be produced would have its bearing on the assessment and that he -requires the same to be produced for making the assessment. In support of this contention the learned senior advocate for the writ petitioner referred to and relied upon a Division Bench decision of this High Court in Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer, "H" Ward, and Ors,, reported at (1978) 115 ITR 799. The relevant lines referred to and relied upon by the learned advocate from the reported decision in Grindlays Bank Ltd. case (supra) are set out hereinbelow:
"We feel no hesitation in agreeing with the learned trial Judge that before any notice under this provision could be issued calling upon an assessee to produce any document, the ITO must be satisfied that such a document would be needed for the purpose of making the assessment or in other words the document must have its bearing on the pending assessment, and, secondly, that he requires the document to be so produced for the purpose of making the assessment. To fulfill these requirements it is quite obvious that the ITO must apply his mind because without such application of mind he can never arrive at any bona fide satisfaction on the two points referred to hereinbefore. As pointed out by this Court in a Bench decision in the case of Hindustan Motor Ltd. v. T.N. Kaul (Appeal No. 380 of 1970) arriving at such a satisfaction is a part of the jurisdictional fact so that the ITO never acquires jurisdiction to issue a notice under Section 142(1) for production of any document until he on application of his own mind arrives at a satisfaction that the document so directed to be produced would have its bearing on the assessment and that he requires the same to be produced for making the assessment. Where the ITO does not apply his mind to these requirements and does not arrive at any such satisfaction but issues the notice in mechanical exercise of his powers it would really be an act beyond his jurisdiction which can certainly be challenged before this Court in the writ jurisdiction. Moreover, issue of a notice in mechanical exercise of powers under Section 142(1) would be merely a purported exercise of powers and not a real one and it is always open to a person aggrieved by such a notice to challenge it before this Court in its writ jurisdiction (see Union of India v. Tarachand Gupta & Bros., , and the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Barium Chemicals v. A.J. Rana (1972)42 Comp Cases 245). This being the position, we are unable to accept the contention of Mr. Pal that even if we accept the contention of the appellant we should hold that the infirmity alleged constitutes such irregularity or illegality as would not entitled this Court to interfere in exercise of its writ Jurisdiction".
13. The learned senior advocate for the writ petitioner also referred to and relied upon a decision of Supreme Court in Barium Chemicals Ltd. v. A.J. Rana, reported at wherein, at paragraphs 15 and 16 of the reported decision a five-Judge Bench of Supreme Court held as follows:
"The words 'considers it necessary' postulate that the authority concerned has thought over the matter deliberately and with care and it has been found necessary as a result of such thinking to pass the order. The dictionary meaning of the word 'consider' is 'to view attentively, to survey, examine, inspect (arch), to look attentively, to contemplate mentally, to think over, meditate on, give heed to, take note of, to think deliberately, behind oneself, to reflect' (vide Shorter Oxford Dictionary). According to words and Phrases- Permanent Edn: Vol 8-A to 'consider' means to think with care. It is also mentioned that to 'consider' is to fix the mind upon with a view to careful examination; to ponder; study; meditate upon, think or reflect with care. It is, therefore, manifest that careful thinking or due application of the mind regarding the necessity to obtain and examine the documents in question in sine qua non for the making of the order. If the impugned order were to show that there has been no careful thinking or proper application of the mind as to the necessity of obtaining and examining the documents specified in the order, the essential requisite to the making of the order would be held to be non-existent".
"16. A necessary corollary of what has been observed above is that mind had to be applied with regard to the necessity to obtain and examine all the documents mentioned in the order. An application of the mind with regard to the necessity to obtain and examine only a few of the many documents mentioned in the order, while there has been no such application of mind in respect of the remaining documents would not be sufficient compliance with the requirements of the statute. If, however, there has been consideration of the matter regarding the necessity to obtain and examine all the documents and an order is passed thereafter, the Court would stay its hand in the matter and would not substitute its own opinion for that of the authority concerned regarding the necessity to obtain the documents in question".
14. The learned senior advocate for the writ petitioner argued that the Assessing Officer in the aforesaid three notices dated 10.10.95, 30.11.95 and 8.1.96 held that the writ petitioner is a "resident" in India under the provisions of Section 6(1)(c) of the said Act and thereby prejudged the issue and the Assessing Officer is biassed against the petitioner. The (earned advocate for the writ petitioner referred to and relied upon a Supreme Court decision in Amar Nath Chowdhury v. Braithwaite & Co. Ltd., reported at (2002)2 SCC 190 wherein it was held by the Supreme Court that bias may be of different kinds and forms. It was held that it may be pecuniary, personal or there may be bias as to the subject matter etc. The learned senior advocate for the writ petitioner argued that in the instant case the Assessing Officer is biased in respect of the subject matter i.e. the residential status of the writ petitioner.
15. The learned advocate for the respondents referring to the enclosure dated 30.11.1995 argued that the words "However you may furnish details and proof of service rendered in view of appointment letter furnished by you" clearly show that the Assessing Officer did not finally arrive at any decision regarding residential status of the writ petitioner. The learned advocate further submitted that a bare perusal of the aforesaid three notices would show that the Assessing Officer considered the matter thoroughly, applied his mind bona fide for the purpose of making the assessment under Section 143 of the said Act. The learned advocate for the respondents argued that the view of the Assessing Officer regarding residential status of the writ petitioner as appears from the aforesaid three notices are tentative views and not final views.
16. I am inclined to accept the argument of the learned advocate for the respondents. Determination of residential status of an assessee is a very important matter for the purpose of determining the total income of any previous year of an assessee. In this connection reference may be made to Section 5 of the said Act which reads as follows:
"5. Scope of total income.--(1) subject to the provisions of this Act, the total income of any previous year of a person who is a resident includes all income from whatever source derived which-
(a) is received or is deemed to be received in India in such year by or on behalf of such person; or
(b) accrues or arises or is deemed to accrue or arise to him in India during such year; or
(c) accrues or arises to him outside India during such year;
Provided that, in the case of a person not ordinarily resident in India within the meaning of Sub-section (6) of Section 6, the income which accrues or arises to him out side India shall not be so included unless it is derived from a business controlled in or a profession set up in India.
(2) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the total income of any previous year of a person who is a non-resident includes all income from whatever source derived which-
(a) is received or is deemed to be received in India in such year by or on behalf of such person; or
(b) accrued or arises or is deemed to accrue or arise to him in India during such year.
Explanation 1.--Income accruing or arising outside India shall not be deemed to be received in India within the meaning of this section by reason only of the fact that it is taken into account in a balance sheet prepared in India.
Explanation 2.--For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that income which has been included in the total income of a person on the basis that it has accrued or arisen or is deemed to have accrued or arisen to him shall not again be so included on the basis that it is received or deemed to be received by him in India".
17. From Section 5 of the said Act it is abundantly clear that when an assessee is a "resident" of India then his total income would include income from whatever source derived which accrues or arises to him outside India during such year. Provided that in the case of a person "not ordinarily resident" in India within the meaning of Sub-section (6) of Section 6, the income which accrues or arises to him outside India shall not be so included unless it is derived from a business controlled in or a profession set up in India. For an assessee who is a "non-resident" in India his total income under Section 5 of the said Act shall not include income accrues or arises to him outside India during the previous year. Therefore, it is very important for an Assessing Officer to decide whether an Assessee is a "resident" of India or a "non-resident". I find from the aforesaid three notices that the Assessing Officer was his best to arrive at a conclusion regarding the residential status of the writ petitioner and he tentatively arrived at a decision that the writ petitioner is a "resident" of India. But this view or decision is not the final view, or final decision. In my opinion, the learned advocate for the respondents rightly argued that the words "However you may furnish details and proof of service rendered in view of appointment letter furnished by you" go a long way to show that the Assessing Officer is not carrying any kind of bias and is keeping an open mind and not arrived at a final decision or conclusion regarding residential status of the writ petitioner. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Assessing Officer made a piece-meal order deciding the residential status of the writ petitioner. Admittedly, no assessment order has been passed yet for the Assessment years 1992-93 and 1993-94. In my view the decisions in Barium Chemicals Ltd. case (supra) and Grindlays Bank Ltd. case (supra) support the case of the respondents because all the aforesaid three notices without any doubt show that the Assessing Officer had applied his mind in the subject matter and by asking the petitioner to disclose his global income did not do any wrong because the global income of the writ petitioner is very much relevant for the purpose of proper assessment. I am of the view that the aforesaid three notices show the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer which confers Jurisdiction upon the Assessing Officer to issue notice under Section 142(1) of the said Act asking for production of document and detail information I am of the view that these three notices clearly show that the Assessing Officer has complied with the requirements laid down in Barium Chemicals Ltd. case (supra) and Grindlays Bank Ltd. case (supra). I am of the view that the Assessing Officer acted within the four corners of his power and jurisdiction and did not travel beyond his jurisdiction.
18. In view of the discussions made hereinabove I am of the view that there is no merit in the writ petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. I dismiss the writ petition. All interim orders are vacated. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
All parties are to act on a signed copy of the operative part of this judgment on the usual undertaking.