Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. In each of these writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ, the petitioner is one P. N, Balasubramanian, Chairman and Managing Director, Barium Chemicals Limited, Kamavaram, Khammam District. He has filed these four writ petitions seeking to quash the orders of the Income-tax Officer, Khammam, passed under Section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, making the best judgment assessments for the income-tax assessment years 1967-68, 1968-69, 1969-70 and 1970-71.

3. Before filing the Writ Petition No. 95 of 1972 before the Delhi High Court, the petitioner made an application to the Central Board of Direct Taxes requesting that his cases may be transferred to the Income-tax Officer, Kothagudem, as it would be more convenient for the petitioner to conduct his income-tax assessment proceedings from Kothagudem. On April 17, 1973, the Income-tax Commissioner, Delhi III, transferred the assessment files to the Commissioner of Income-tax, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, for onward transmission to the Income-tax Officer concerned. The petitioner received a letter from the Income-tax Officer, Khammam, on April 26, 1973, informing the petitioner that he has received the petitioner's case on transfer from Delhi and proposed to continue the proceedings from the stage left by the predecessor-Income-tax Officer. By the said letter, the Income-tax Officer, Khammam, called upon the petitioner to furnish information on numerous points relating to the assessment years 1967-68, 1968-69, 1969-70 and 1970-71. Along with the letters, notices under sections 142(1) and 143(2) of the Act were sent fixing the cases for hearing on April 30, 1973, for the four assessments under consideration. The above said letter and notices were served on the petitioner on the same day. On April 28, 1973, the petitioner wrote a letter to the Income.-tax Officer, Khammam, raising several legal objections to the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer, Khammam, to assess the petitioner. He further complained that the time given to the petitioner was totally inadequate and it was impossible for him to furnish the particulars called for. Before sending the said letter he spoke to the Income-tax Officer on the telephone and the Income-tax Officer told him that he was only acting under the instructions of the superiors and was helpless. This allegation is, however, denied by the Income-tax Officer in the counter-affidavit. The letter was delivered to the Income-tax Officer, Khammam, on April 30, 1973, on which date the matters stood posted for hearing before the Income-tax Officer, Khammam. On April 30, 1973, the Income-tax Officer, Khammam, sent another letter to the petitioner stating that a fresh opportunity was given to the petitioner by adjourning the cases for hearing to May 4, 1973. The Income-tax Officer sent formal notices under Sections 142(1) and 143(2) of the Act and this letter was received by the petitioner's secretary at Ramavaram when the petitioner was away and the letter and the notices were placed before the petitioner only on May 5, 1973, when the petitioner returned to headquarters. As the letter itself was seen on May 5, 1973, and since the case had been posted before the Income-tax Officer on May 4, 1973, the petitioner did not send any reply to the notices dated April 30, 1973. The Income-tax Officer, Khammam, completed the assessments for the assessment years 1967-68, 1968-69, 1969-70 and 1970-71 under Section 144 of the Act on May 7, 1973. The petitioner received assessment orders for all the four years on May 10, 1973. The assessment for the year 1967-68 was made on a total income of Rs. 4,81,590 against loss of Rs. 70,670 declared by the petitioner in his return. The assessment for the year 1968-69 was made on a total income of Rs. 60,760 against loss of Rs. 1,437 declared by the petitioner in his return. The assessment for the year 1969-70 was made on a total income of Rs. 2,37,465 against loss of Rs. 3,300 declared by the petitioner in his return. Finally, the assessment for the year 1970-71 was made on a total income of Rs. 2,34,100 against loss of Rs. 3,52,166 declared by the petitioner in his return. Aggrieved against the assessment orders passed under Section 144 of the Act, the petitioner has now filed these writ petitions questioning the validity of the assessments.

4. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Income-tax Officer, Khammam, it is, inter alia, stated that the ex parte orders under Section 144 of the Act were passed as the petitioner-assessee did not co-operate in spite of affording him several opportunities to represent his case. It is stated that the record also disclosed that several opportunities had been given by the predecessor-Income-tax Officer at Delhi prior to the transfer of the cases from Delhi, but the petitioner always postponed. The case was posted to November 22, 1972 by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle IX, New Delhi, and underwent several adjournments. At every hearing either the petitioner or his representative stated that the details of information called for was being compiled. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that the transfer of the case to the Income-tax Officer, Khammam, was at the request of the petitioner and the proceedings before the Income-tax Officers, Delhi and Khammam, clearly showed that the petitioner was adopting dilatory tactics and, therefore, the ex parte assessment had to be made. The statement attributed to the Income-tax Officer, Khammam; during the telephone conversation with the petitioner is denied. It is the case of the revenue that, in view of the short time available for the completion of assessment proceedings within the time prescribed by the statute, and the inordinate delay caused by the petitioner's dilatory tactics, the assessments were completed expeditiously. It is further stated that the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy by way of appeal against the order of assessments and by way of an application to reopen the ex parte assessments under Section 146 of the Act.

26. On April 17, 1973, the Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi III, according to the request of the petitioner, transferred the case to the Commissioner of Income-tax, Andhra Pradesh, who forwarded the same to the Income-tax Officer, Khammam. By then, it is stated by the learned counsel for the revenue, there were 26 days available to complete the assessments within the statutory period of limitation. Otherwise, the assessments would get time-barred. Therefore, the Income-tax Officer, sent a notice on April 26, 1973, requiring him to furnish the necessary information on April 30, 1973. The petitioner again questioned, in the Delhi High Court in W.P. No. 960 of 1973, the validity of the transfer of the assessment proceedings to the Commissioner of Income-tax, Hyderabad. The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition on March 6, 1974, holding that the transfer was at his own request and was in accordance with Section 127 of the Act. The proceedings had been pending before the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle (9), Delhi, and. the petitioner had already taken a number of adjournments before him. He knew about the information that was required and he had more than an year to compile the information because the last adjournment before the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle (9), New Delhi, was on January 10, 1972. In spite of it he prayed for further time for furnishing information and the Income-tax Officer, Khammam, gave him time till May 4, 1973, and the notice was served on May 4, 1973. That apart, under Sub-section (2) of Section 127 the transfer of a case from one Income-tax Officer to another shall not render it necessary to re-issue any notice already issued by the Income-tax Officer from whom the case was transferred. Issue of any fresh notice by the Income-tax Officer, Khammam, was not necessary under the law, since notices had already been issued by the Income-tax Officer, Delhi, from whom the case was transferred. The assessment orders were passed on May 7, 1973. The petitioner also did not appear before the Income-tax Officer subsequently and file any application under Section 146 of the Act to reopen the assessments. These circumstances clearly establish that the petitioner was given reasonable opportunity to furnish full information before the orders of assessment were passed under Section 144 of the Act but the petitioner did not avail himself of that opportunity.