V.BHARGAVA, J. - (1.) THIS petition under Art.226 of the Constitution has been filed by the firm Gangadhar Baijnath and its three partners, Rameshwar Prasad Bagla, Harishankar Bagla and Satyanarain Bagla. The petition relates to proceedings being taken against the firm under the provisions of the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act.
(2.) IT has been stated on behalf of the petitioners that one Sri V.P. Gupta was appointed as the Authorised Official by the Income -tax Investigation Commission to discharge the functions of such officer under the said Act No.XXX of 1947, and on 29 -6 -1950 the petitioners received a notice from Sri V.P. Gupta, Authorised Official, to furnish certain information appearing in the petitioners books of accounts, which were specified in that notice. Thereafter the Authorised Official carried on his investigation for more than a year and a half, during which time he sent a number of requisitions to the petitioners calling for account books, statements and other information. While this investigation was still going on, the petitioners were informed by a letter of the Authorised Official, dated 22 -10 -1951 that the matter was likely to be heard by the Income -tax Investigation Commission sometime early in December, 1951. Later the definite date of hearing was communicated to the petitioners as 18 -12 -1951, On 11 -12 -1951 the petitioners received a copy of the report of the Authorised Official, which had been submitted by him to the Income -tax Investigation Commission. The petitioners appeared through a counsel before the Commission on 18 -12 -1951 at New Delhi, when their request for adjournment had been refused. The case was heard for several days and the proceedings were protracted. Since considerable time was being taken in the case, the petitioners thought that it would be advisable to conclude the proceedings by requesting the Commission to arrive at a settlement and fix the quantum of evaded income at Rs.16 lacs. This offer was not accepted by the Commission and, on the other hand, a demand was made that the petitioners should disclose the details of the income covered by their proposal for settlement. This disclosure was to be made by 17 -3 -1952. Later, the time granted was curtailed to 10 -3 -1952. The next hearing of the case commenced, however, on 17 -3 -1952 and, during this hearing, one of the partners, Harishanker Bagla, who has filed the affidavit in support of this petition, was examined in connection with the detailed disclosure referred to above. The next hearing took place on 7 -4 -1952 at Kanpur. Further hearings continued in May 1952 and ultimately the Investigation Commission submitted its report to the Government, this report being dated 23 -5 -1952. On the basis of this report, the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Revenue) Division) issued an order dated 7 -6 -1952 under S.8(2) of the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, No.XXX of 1947, directing reassessment of the petitioners firm and its partners on the escaped income the figures of which have been detailed in that order. It was also directed that penalty proceedings under S.28 of the Income -tax Act, and S.16 of the Excess Profits Tax Act be taken against the petitioners. Thereafter Sri Satnam Singh Hitkari Income -tax Officer, District II(i), Kanpur, issued notices dated 21 -7 -1952 to the petitioners under S.34 of the Income -tax Act. These notices were received by the petitioners on 4 -8 -1952. Similar notices were also issued under S.15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act. These notices under S.34 of the Income -tax Act related to the assessment years ending on 31 -3 -1944, 31 -3 -1945, 31 -3 -1946, 31 -3 -1947 and 31 -3 -1948. The notices under the Excess Profits Tax Act related to the five chargeable accounting periods, the first one of which began on 30 -9 -1941 and the last one of which ended on 31 -3 -1946. After the service of those notices, the, petitioners moved this petition in this Court on 25 -8 -1952 and an ad interim order was passed restraining the Income -tax Officer from continuing the proceedings initiated in pursuance of the Government Order dated 7 -6 -1952. The opposite parties impleaded in this petition are the Income -tax Investigation Commission, New; Delhi; the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Revenue Division), New Delhi; the Central Board of Revenue, New Delhi, and the Income -tax Officer, District II(i), the Mall, Kanpur. In the petition, the prayer is for the issue of three writs. The first is a writ in the nature of mandamus to opposite party No.2, the Government of India, directing it to withdraw its order dated 7 -6 -1952. The second is a writ in the nature of prohibition to the Income -tax Officer, opposite party No.4, prohibiting him from continuing further proceedings initiated in pursuance of that Government order dated 7 -6 -1952. The third is a writ in the nature of certiorari to the Income -tax Investigation Commission, opposite party No.1, and to the Income -tax Officer, opposite party No.4, calling for the record of the case and quashing proceedings of the Income -tax Investigation Commission and of the Income -tax Officer, which had been initiated pursuance of the Government order dated 7 -6 -1952. A counter -affidavit was filed on behalf of the opposite parties by Sri V.P. Gupta, who was the Authorised Official, as mentioned above. A rejoinder affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioners. It does not appear to be necessary to go into the facts, given in the counter and the rejoinder affidavits, for the purpose of deciding this writ petition, as the facts, on which we intend to rely, are not controverted in the counter -affidavit.
(3.) WHEN the petition came up for hearing, a preliminary objection was raised by Sri Jagdish Swarup, learned counsel for the opposite parties, that this Court was not competent to issue writs against opposite parties Nos.1, 2 and 3. This objection was raised on the basis of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in - Election Commission, India v. Saka Venkata Rao, AIR 1953 SC 210 (A), - K.S. Abdul Rashid v. Income -tax Investigation Commission, AIR 1954 SC 207 (B) and the opinion delivered by a five Judge Bench of this Court at Lucknow in - Azmat Ullah v. Custodian, Evacuee Property, U.P. Lucknow, AIR 1955 All 435 (FB) (C). It appears to us that this objection raised by the learned counsel for the opposite parties must succeed. We may also in this connection refer to a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in - Ram Kirpal v. Union of India, AIR 1955 All 468 (D), in which judgment was delivered on 12 -4 -1955. The principles laid down in these cases clearly support the preliminary objection of learned counsel for the opposite parties. It is not within the jurisdiction of this Court to issue a writ of certiorari against the Income -tax Investigation Commission, which is situated at New Delhi, and to quash its findings in the case of the petitioners. Similarly, it is not within the jurisdiction of this Court to issue any writ to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Revenue Division), New Delhi, in respect of its order dated 7 -6 -1952. Mr. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioners, in view of this position, argued this case before us only with respect to the prayers for the issue of writs against opposite party No.4. The Income -tax Officer, Kanpur, before whom the proceedings are at present pending and who issued notices under S.34 of the Income -tax Act to the petitioners in pursuance of the order of the Government of India dated 7 -6 -1952. All these notices were issued by opposite party No.4 on 21 -7 -1952. ;