JATINDRA NATH SARMAH Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts of these two cases are identical or similar and the questions of law arising for determination are also incidental with the only difference that the assessment year involved in Civil Rule No. 101 of 1974 is 1964-65 and that in Civil Rule No. 102 of 1974 is 1965-66 and the parties are also the same. This judgment will, therefore, cover both these cases.

(2.) THE facts of these two cases briefly are that two notices under section 148 of the Act for the aforesaid two assessment years were issued to the petitioner requiring him to submit return in the prescribed form of his income for the two assessment years. THE petitioner did not respond to either of the two notices. THEreafter, two other notices dated February 12, 1969, under section 142(1) of the Act were issued to the petitioner for production of accounts for the assessment years from 1964-65 to 1967-68. By letter dated February 22, 1969, the petitioner informed the Income-tax Officer that amongst other things he was a partner of M/s. Traders and Builders Corporation, Dibrugarh, and he had no other source of income and that an assessment proceeding of the said firm was pending at the relevant time but the firm had in the meantime been dissolved. THEreafter, the petitioner submitted another letter to the Income-tax Officer showing his capital and loan account in the defunct firm under the name and style of M/s. Traders and Builders Corporation", Dibrugarh. In the said letter the petitioner stated that he received salary of Rs. 5,000 from the State Bank of India, Jorhat Branch, from 1958-62 and Rs. 3,000 from M/s. Sharma and Siddhanta, for the year 1962-63, respectively, and a sum of Rs. 10,000 from his father and Rs. 11,000 as loan from his friends. A copy of this letter is annexure "C" to the two petitions. THE petitioner, thereafter, was again asked by the Income-tax Officer to produce evidence in respect of sources of investment to which the petitioner replied that he had no savings account in the bank in his name. THEreafter, the Income-tax Officer assessed the petitioner for the said two assessment years.

(3.) MR. P. G. Baruah, the learned counsel for the petitioner-assessee, submits that (i) the two notices purported to be issued under section 148 of the Act were not in terms of section 147(1) of the Act and that being the position the notices under section 148 were incompetent and as such the two assessment proceedings were void ab initio and consequently the assessment orders passed in such void proceedings are nullities; (ii) the addition of the sum of Rs. 29,041.08 as income from undisclosed sources in the assessment year 1964-65 is bad in law inasmuch as the department failed to discharge the burden that lies on it in such matters; and (iii) the Commissioner in his order accepted some portion of the explanation given by the assessee as genuine and that being so, he had no jurisdiction to reject the other portion.