T.K.Basu, J. - (1.) On or about the 13th March, 1963, the petitioner, Mohini Debi Malpani, submitted a return of her income for the assessment year 1960-61 to the Income-tax Officer, "J" Ward, District I (I), Calcutta, who at that time had jurisdiction over the case of the petitioner, Thereafter, a notice under Section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), was issued by the said Income-tax Officer calling upon the petitioner to produce the evidence on which the petitioner relied in support, of her return. At the request of the petitioner, the time for production of the evidence was extended by the said Income-tax Officer until the 12th February, 1964. On the 12th February, 1964, one C. M. Chopra, on behalf of the petitioner, produced certain rokar and khata on which the petitioner relied in support of her return.
(2.) On the 30th March, 1965, the petitioner received a notice of demand dated the 23rd March, 1965, issued under Section 156 of the Act calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 81,882.06 as income-tax for the assessment year 1960-61. A copy of the order of assessment for the said assessment year dated the 22nd March, 1965, was also served on the petitioner along with the said notice.
(3.) The order of assessment was passed to the best of the judgment of the Income-tax Officer, "D" Ward, Dist I (I), Calcutta, the respondent No. 1 herein, under the provisions of Section 144 of the Act. Paragraph 2 of the order of assessment, which is material for our purpose, is as follows : "Later this file was transferred from I.T.O. 'J' Ward, Dist. I(I) to I.T.O. 'D' Ward, Dist. I(I) under C.I.T.'s order. Accordingly, the case was refixed for hearing giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard. A notice under Section 131 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was issued at the different addresses shown in the return for the personal attendance of the assessee and for the production of books of accounts and for the proof of the sources of income and for the production of evidence regarding the sources of the investments. But the summonses which were issued under registered post came back unserved. Thus, it appears that the assessee filed voluntary returns giving false addresses and that the assessee did not carry on any business there. As there was no compliance on the date of hearing I proceed to complete the assessment to the best of my judgment on the materials available on the record.";