- (1.) By this writ petition (amended) the assessee has made following prayers. "(I) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari and to quash the order dated 23.3.2000 passed by learned Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-I, Kanpur (Annexure-1 to the writ petition). Further, to quash the re-assessment proceeding initiated against the petitioner vide notice dated 21.3.1997 for the assessment year 1988-89, (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) "and the approval granted by the Commissioner of Income Tax dated 21.3.1997". (II) award cost of this petition to the petitioner."
(2.) Sri S.D. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Krishna Dev Vyas, learned counsel for the assessee submits that assessee is engaged in the manufacturing and sale of the yarn. He purchased the raw materials from various sources including the Government undertakings. For the assessment year under consideration, the notices were issued under Section 148, but the same were dropped on 08.01.1997 and 03.03.1997 respectively. However, second notices under Section-148 were issued on 04.03.1997, where various discrepancies in the accounts were mentioned. He submits that earlier and subsequent notices were having the same nature/reason. When the first notices were dropped then there was no occasion to issue fresh notices on IInd time. The notices are ab-nitio null and void and the same will have to be canceled. He admits that the raw materials was purchased from U.P. State Spinning Mill Ltd.; and U.P. State Trading Ltd. through their branches. If there is some discrepancy in the book of accounts then the sellers of the raw materials will have to be held responsible and certainly, not the assessee. No prima-facie material was found for the discrepancy. The creditors are liable and not the debtors. For the purpose he relied the ratio laid down in the following cases:- 1. Satyamangalam Agricultural Producer s Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd. Vs. Income-TAx Officer, 2013 357 ITR 347; 2. Sahara India (Firm) Vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax and another, 2008 300 ITR 403; 3. Income-Tax Officer, I Ward, Distt. VI, Calcutta, and others Vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das., 1976 103 ITR 437; 4. Indra Prastha Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. and others Vs. Commissioner of Income- Tax and another, 2004 271 ITR 113; 5. M.L. Shukla & Co. Vs. The Sales Tax Officer, Sector 17, Kanpur,1981 UPTC 396; 6. The General Electric Company of India Ltd., the Mall, Kanpur Vs. The Sales Tax Officer, Sector IV, Kanpur,1973 UPTC 386; and 7. Chhugamal Rajpal Vs. S.P. Chaliha, 1971 79 ITR 603.
(3.) The learned counsel further submits that there is only right to suspect for which no notice can be issued under Section-148. There is no reason to believe in the instant case. Lastly, he made a request to allow the relief as prayed.;