Amar Nath Banerjee, J. - (1.) In this application the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to act according to law and to cancel and/or rescind and/or withdraw the notices dated January 14, 1975, issued under Section 274 read with Section 271 of the Income-tax Act and all assessments, if any, and all proceed-ings thereunder for the assessment years 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70 and the purported notices dated October 10, 1974, under Section 131 of the Act and also to cancel and/or rescind the said purported warrant of authorization under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act. He has also asked for a writ in the nature of certiorari calling upon the respondents to send the records of the case together with the notices for the aforesaid years and warrant of authorization may be quashed. There are also prayers for writ in the nature of prohibition and interim injunction. It appears that on August 30, 1974, a search of the petitioner's residences at 8, Mandeville Gardens, Calcutta, was made by the income-tax department at the instance of the respondent No. 3, Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal III, who purported to act under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and signed the warrant of authorization for the said search. The search in the house of the petitioner led to certain publication in certain newspapers which according to the petitioner were malicious and false. The search was followed by enquiries by the income-tax department about the affairs of the petitioner. Ultimately, the petitioner received notices under Section 274 read with Section 271 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, issued by the Income-tax Officer, "F" Ward, District--III(I), Calcutta, regarding the proceeding for levy of penalty in respect of the assessment years 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70. The notices issued by the Income-tax Officer are dated January 14, 1975. In the said notices it was stated that the penalty proceedings were being referred to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax according to Sub-section (2) of Section 274 of the Income-tax Act. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax also issued similar notices dated January 15, 1975. Now, the petitioner is challenging the issue of such notices as illegal, mala fide and invalid. The petitioner appearing in person took two points regarding such penalty proceedings. His first point was that there could not be any such penalty proceedings without assessment. It was also contended before me that the assessment proceedings were made ex parte and without notice to him. His second point was that, in any event, such penalty proceedings were barred by limitation. "Whereas in the course of proceedings before me for the assessment year 1967-68, it appears to rne that you have concealed the particulars of your income or deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of such income and whereas the penalty proceedings have to be referred to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax according to Sub-section (2) of Section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, you are hereby informed that the case for levy of a penalty under Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 271 is being referred by me to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Range III, Calcutta. Further proceedings in regard to the levy ot penalty will take place before the said Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax as provided in Sub-section (2) of Section 274."
(2.) The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner also issued notices dated January 15, 1975, to the petitioner. The notice issued by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner runs as follows : "Wheras the Income-tax Officer, 'F' Ward, Dist. III(I), Calcutta, has under Sub-section (2) of Section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, referred your case to me in connection with the penalty proceedings under Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 271 and whereas it appears to me that you have concealed the particulars of your income or deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of such income for the assessment year 1967-68. You are hereby requested to appear before me at 11-30 a.m. on February 26, 1975, and show cause why an order imposing a penalty on you should not be made under Section 271(1)(c) of the said Act. If you do not wish to avail yourself of this opportunity of being heard in person or through authorised representative you may show cause in writing on or before the said date which will be considered before any such order is made under Section 271(1)(c)."
(3.) It will appear from paragraphs 14 and 17 of the affidavit sworn by the respondent-Income-tax Officer that on the basis of the materials in his possession he was prima facie satisfied that the petitioner had concealed the particulars of his income and furnished inaccurate particulars of such income for the assessment years 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70. It has appeared in paragraph 17 of the affidavit that for the assessment year 1967-68, the petitioner filed a return on 6th October, 1971, disclosing his income from pension only. In the course of investigation it has been found as alleged that the petitioner, amongst others, concealed particulars of his income for the said assessment years from his profession, the income from interest and the notional income from fixed deposits. There were similar suppressions with regard to the returns filed for the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70. The returns for the said two assessment years were also filed on 6th October, 1971.;