Suhas Chandra Sen, J. - (1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The notice has been issued for assessing escapement of income for the assessment year 1984-85. The date of the notice is August 13, 1991, which is beyond four years from the end of the assessment year in course of which the assessment proceedings were completed. The reasons for reopening the case as recorded by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax on August 13, 1991, are as under : "In the original return filed on December 12, 1984, the assessee claimed depreciation amounting to Rs. 11,25,934. In the revised return, there was no change so far as this claim is concerned. In the claim made in the return, the assessee claimed extra depreciation over and above the normal depreciation in the case of old as well as new plant and machinery. Apparently, this claim was made as per the terms of item III(iii) of Appendix I to the Income-tax Rules, 1962. Such extra depreciation was allowable in the case of a company using its premises as a hotel where such plant and machinery were installed provided that such hotels were approved by the Central Government for the purpose of Section 33 of the Act. From the above, it is clear that only when a hotel enjoys an approval for the purpose of grant of development rebate under Section 33 of the Act, could it be also allowed extra depreciation on old as well as new plant and machinery installed in the hotel premises, the provision of development rebate was withdrawn automatically such approval could also be treated as withdrawn (sic). The Central Government Notification No. S.O. 2167, dated May 28, 1971 (see [1971] 81 ITR (St.) 45) issued under subsection (5) of Section 33 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, provided for discontinuation of the grant of development rebate on plant and machinery with effect from June 1, 1974. The assessee is well aware of this provision. Yet it filed a return showing greater loss than 'what it actually incurred by loading the claim of depreciation with extra depreciation amounting to Rs. 47,19,913. Therefore, the return filed on March 17, 1987, did not disclose truly and fully the total income/loss of the assessee and there was a definite failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts necessary for completion of its assessment and determination of the correct income/loss in accordance with law. Due to the aforesaid failure of the assessee to make a true and full declaration of its income, the assessment completed on March 1, 1980, resulted in an underassessment by an amount of Rs. 47,19,913. Issue notice under Section 148 to the assessee. (sd.) (A.K. Chatterjee) dated August 13, 1991, D. C. I. T. Spl. Range-13, Calcutta."
(2.) There is no dispute that the sanction of the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner of Income-tax was not obtained before issuance of this notice. .
(3.) Two questions have been raised by Dr. Pal, appearing on behalf of the petitioner. The first is as to whether this notice is void inasmuch as the sanction of the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner of Income-tax was not obtained before issuance of the notice. The second point is as to whether there was any reason for issuance of the notice at all in view of the fact that the recorded reasons have not alleged any omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose any material fact which led to underassessment.;