Sikri J. - (1.) This appeal by certificate of fitness granted by the High Court is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court at Calcutta, affirming the judgment of the single judge. This appeal was heard together in this court along with Civil Appeal No. 1421 of 1966 (Kalawati Devi Harlalka v. Commissioner of Income-tax in which we have just delivered judgment, and apart from the questions involved in that case, the only additional point raised before us in this appeal is that no fair and reasonable opportunity was given to the appellant, Rampyari Devi Saraogi, hereinafter referred to as the assessee, by the Commissioner of Income-tax who passed the order dated March 15, 1963, under section 33B of the Income Tax Act, 1922. Following our judgment in Kalawati Devi Harlalka v. Commissioner of Income-tax, (1967) 66 ITR 680 (SC) we hold that the Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal, Calcutta, had jurisdiction under section 33B of the Income Tax Act, 1922, to revise the assessment orders for the years 1952-53 to 1960- 61.
(2.) To appreciate the additional point raised before us it is necessary to give the relevant facts. On March 8, 1963, the Commissioner of Income- tax, West Bengal, sent a notice under section 33B to the assessee in the following terms : "On calling for and examining the records of your case for the assessment years 1952-53, 1953-54, 1954-55, 1955-56, 1956-57, 1957-58, 1958-59, 1959-60 and 1960-61, and other connected records I consider that the orders of assessment passed by the Income-tax Officer, D Ward, Howrah, on 30th March, 1961, and 26th April, 1961, are erroneous in so far as they are prejudicial to the interest of revenue for the following reasons amongst others. 2. Enquiries made have revealed that you neither resided nor carried on any business from the address declared in the returns. Also the Income-tax Officer was not justified in accepting the initial capital, the gift received and sale of jewellery, the income from business, etc., without any enquiry or evidence whatsoever. 3. I, therefore, propose to pass such orders thereon as the circumstances of the cases justify after giving you an opportunity of being heard under the powers vested in me under section 33B of the Income Tax Act, 1922. The cases will be heard at 10.30 a.m. on 15th March, 1963, at my above office when you are requested to produce the necessary evidence in support of your contentions, objections in writing accompanied by the necessary evidence, if any, received on or before the appointment for personal hearing will also be duly considered. 4. Please note that no adjournment of the hearing will be granted."
(3.) On March 13, 1963, Mr. D.K. Chaudhuri, tax consultant, on behalf of the assessee wrote a letter to the Commissioner stating that the show- cause notice under section 33B was bad in law, illegal and void and without jurisdiction. He further stated that the notice was absolutely vague and did not contain any indications in what respect the assessment orders were erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue. He further pointed out that the assessee was not aware as to what enquiries had been made by the Commissioner and until the copies of such enquiries were made available, the assessee was not in a position to produce any evidence before the Commissioner. The assessee appeared before the Commissioner on March 15, 1963, and on the same day the Commissioner passed an order under section 33B of the Income Tax Act, 1922. In the concluding paragraph of the order he stated : "Having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case as I consider that the assessments made by the Income-tax Officer, D Ward, Howrah, Shri N. Biswas, by his orders dated 30th March, 1961, for the assessment years 1952-53 to 1957-58 and orders dated 26th April, 1961, for the assessment years 1958-59 to 1960-61 are erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue, I cancel the said assessments and direct the Income-tax Officer to do fresh assessments according to law, after making proper enquiries and investigation in regard to the jurisdiction, carrying on of the business, possession of initial capital, gifts received and the sources of the moneys invested in the name of the assessee." ;