S.K.Mookherjee, A.C.J. - (1.) With consent of the contesting parties, we have treated the appeal as on day's list for being heard out, dispensing with all the formalities required to be observed in terms of the rules of this court.
(2.) The subject matter of appeal is an order passed by a learned single Judge dated 21st March, 1997, in writ petition No.4960 (W) of 1997. The learned single Judge by the said order had been pleased to dismiss the Writ petition, inter alia, with a finding that the assessing officer had jurisdiction to proceed with the assessment and for that purpose called for information as required for the purpose of assessment and that while doing so the learned single Judge rejected the petitioner's contention that the respondent/Assessing Officer had not made up her mind as to the nature of the transaction. In view of such, observations made by the learned single Judge, Dr. Pal, appearing in support of the appeal and the connected application, had contended that the comment of the Assessing Officer in the impugned notice (annexure 'E') to the effect that the sale and lease back was merely a paper transaction indicated that the officer had already made up her mind and had prayed for stay of the further proceedings in the assessment case till the disposal of the connected appeal. On behalf of the contesting respondents, the Income Tax Authorities, had been emphatically submitted that the issuance of the notice itself was indicative of the fact that the officer in question had an open mind and it was undeniable that she had not made up her mind. It was also pointed out on behalf of the respondents, that the assessment was to be completed by 31st of March, 1997 and any delay in the matter would render the assessment barred.
(3.) In the perspective of the aforesaid urgency, we heard out the appeal. From, a scrutiny of the notice, it appears that the Assessing Officer called for information which, in case the documents already furnished by the appellant as enclosures to its letter dated 13th of January, 1997, had been looked into, would not have been wholly necessary and it was open to the Assessing Officer to proceed on the materials already made available by the appellant. By way of justification of our aforesaid view, we would like to point that the reply to the query No.1, in the disputed notice was already available in the penultimate paragraph of clause 'a' of the assesse's letter; the reply to the query No.2, was available in the 3rd sub-paragraph of Clause No.'a' in the said letter.;