- (1.) The Court: It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners in both writ petitions that the identical facts and legal position cover both matters and any order rendered on the one will automatically govern the other. It is in such circumstances that the matters pertaining to the writ petition appearing first in the list, WP No. 516 of 2010, is taken up for consideration. The case of the petitioning-assessee is that a second notice issued under section 158BD of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is invalid. The grounds urged are that upon the previous similar notice having been dropped, the relevant assessing officer did not have the authority to issue the subsequent notice; that the conditions precedent for the issuance of a notice under section 158BD of the Act were not complied with; and, that the notice was issued beyond the period of limitation.
(2.) In connection with the search conducted at the premises of or pertaining to the documents relating to another assessee under section 132 of the Act, the relevant assessing officer may have been of the opinion that this petitioning-assessee may have not accurately disclosed his income whereupon the matter was referred to the assessing officer exercising jurisdiction over this assessee. By a notice dated October 29, 2004, the assessing officer bearing the designation of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle XXIII. Kolkata, called upon the petitioning-assessee to file the return for his total income, including the undisclosed income for the block period of April 1, 1996 to October 28, 2002. The assessee claims to have duly filed the return, following which a notice was issued under section 143(2) of the Act by the assessing officer and a further notice under section 142 of the Act followed in due course.
(3.) By a notice dated November 21, 2006, the relevant assessing officer, the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle XXIII, Kolkata, informed the petitioner that the proceedings initiated under section 158BD of the Act on October 29, 2004 "has been dropped since the jurisdiction over the case lies with I.T.O. Ward 38(1) Kolkata." The petitioner says that he heard nothing of the matter and did not think much of it since the entire proceedings appeared to have been dropped till he received a notice in March. 2010, calling upon him to file his return for the same block period for which he had already filed a return pursuant to the previous notice of 2004.;