K.L.Roy, J. - (1.) This petition is purported to be made on behalf of the Hindu undivided family of which Mahabir Prosad Poddar is the karta. No returns were filed by the Hindu undivided family for the assessment years 1957-58 to 1961-62 and no assessments were made in respect of the said years until the time hereinafter mentioned. On the 16th March, 1963, the petitioner, Mahabir Prosad Poddar, as an individual, was served with four notices all dated the 19th February, 1963, purported to be under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the second respondent-Income-tax Officer in respect of the assessment years 1958-59 to 1961-62 requiring the petitioner to file his returns for the said years as his income therefor had escaped assessment. A further notice under Section 148 dated the 7th March, 1963, in respect of the assessment year 1957-58 was issued by the said respondent-Income-tax Officer, after obtaining the necessary satisfaction of the Commissioner and served on Mahabir Prosad Poddar on the 16th March, 1963. Mahabir Prosad filed his returns for all the aforesaid five years on the 18th October, 1963, Notices under Section 142(1) in respect of the above years were served on 24th August, 1963. Thereafter, the premises of the petitioner were searched on the 1st October, 1964, and it is claimed in the petitioner that on 12th July, 1965, Mahabir Prosad, as the karta of the Hindu undivided family applied under Section 271(4A) to the Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal III, the respondent No. 4 herein, making a disclosure of the hitherto unassessed income of the Hindu undivided family and praying for a spread over of the tax payable in respect of the said disclosed income. It is further alleged in the petition that by his letter dated 26th August, 1966, addressed to Mahabir Prosad, the 1st respondent-Income-tax Officer informed him that the returns for the assessment years 1957-58 to 1963-64 had already been filed and for which the requisite notices under Section 143(2) were being enclosed. It was further pointed out that no returns had been filed for the assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66 and that the statements filed by Mahabir Prosad showed that there was a net increase in his wealth of Rs. 9,51,861 during the financial year 1964-65 and he was required to show cause why the said amount should not be taken as his income for the assessment year 1965-66. Requisitions for production of various books of account and other supporting documents were also made. In reply, by his letter dated 26th September, 1966, Mahabir Prosad, on behalf of the Hindu undivided family, pointed out that no returns had been filed by the Hindu undivided family, for any of the aforesaid years and that the Hindu undivided family had by its application dated 12th July, 1965, made a disclosure under Section 271(4A). As no decision had been taken in the disclosure matter the Hindu undivided family was filing its returns for the assessment years 1951-52 to 1965 66 so that its income may be taken as per the decision of the Commissioner on the disclosure petition. Along with the said letter returns of the Hindu undivided family for the assessment years 1951-52 to 1965-66 were filed. It is further alleged in the petition that on or about the 3rd March, 1967, the petitioner received five purported orders of assessment under Section 143(3)/147(a) for the assessment years 1957-58 to 1961-62 made on the 28th and 29th February, 1967 (sic), respectively, on the Hindu undivided family. In the said purported assessment orders it was recorded that though returns in the status of an individual were originally filed on 18th October, 1963, as subsequently on 27th October, 1966, the assessee filed revised returns showing the status as Hindu undivided family which were accepted, the assessments were completed in the status of Hindu undivided family. Subsequent assessments were also made on the Hindu undivided family in respect of the assessment years 1962-63 to 1965-66 but these later assessments are not impugned in this rule.
(2.) The petitioner's appeals against the said orders of assessment for the assessment years 1957-58 to 1961-62 were dismissed by the respondent-Appellate Assistant Commissioner by his order dated 27th December, 1967. This rule was obtained on 18th March, 1969.
(3.) An entirely different picture is presented by the facts stated in the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondents and affirmed by the Income-tax Officer who made the impugned assessments. Prior to April, 1958, there was no income-tax file in the name of Mahabir Prosad, either in his individual capacity or as the karta of a Hindu undivided "family as the department had no information that such an assessee with an assessable income existed. In 1961, information was received from the special investigation branch that during the period 1st April, 1958, to 31st March, 1959, a sum of Rs. 2,33,763.53 had been received by one Mahabir Prosad Poddar from India General Steam Navigation & Rly. Co. Ltd., Calcutta, and a file in that name was started in December, 1961. From further investigation made by the special investigation branch it was ascertained that the total payments received by Mahabir Prosad during the calendar year 1959 amounted to Rs. 25,50,961. This information was conveyed to the respondent-Income-tax Officer in February, 1962, whereupon he started further inquiry. On or about the 13th December, 1962, the respondent-Income-tax Officer issued a notice under Section 139(2) of the Act in the name of Mahabir Prosad for the assessment year 1962-63, and later Mahabir Prosad was examined under Section 131 of the Act on 16th January, 1963. In his deposition, Mahabir Prosad stated that his father left no property, that he used to carry on business in the name of M. P. Poddar and that he had been doing business on his own account for the last two years for which he maintained bank accounts. On further enquiry it was discovered in August, 1962, that supplies had been made to the India General Navigation Co. Ltd., in the names, inter alia, of three concerns, namely, I. P. Trading Co., Easwar Engineering Co. and Hanuman Timber Traders. It is pointed out that at no stage was it ever contended by Mahabir that the income from business was the income of the Hindu undivided family and not of himself as an individual. In response to the notices under Section 148 he filed returns in the status of an individual and in Part III of the returns various businesses carried on by the assessee were declared to include amongst others I. P. Trading Co., Easwar Engineering Co. and Hanuman Timber Traders. It was only after the search and seizure made on the 1st October, 1964, that Mahabir Prosad filed a statement of wealth of the Hindu undivided family of which he claims to be the karta affirmed before a notary public on 22nd February, 1965, showing the net wealth at Rs. 25,07,151. In the application under Section 271(4A) to the Commissioner the total assets as on 31st March, 1965, was shown at Rs. 35,56,698. It is asserted that returns for the assessment years 1957-58 to 1965-66 were filed on 27th September, 1966, by Mahabir Prosad as the purported karta of the Hindu undivided family quoting the same file number as allotted to him in respect of the returns filed by him on 18th October, 1963. The respondent further states that after filing the returns as an individual Mahabir Prosad later on filed revised returns in the status of a Hindu undivided family and the claim for the status as shown in the revised returns was accepted by the department on the merits.;