Susanta Chatterji, J. - (1.) The writ petitioner has obtained the present rule on August 13, 1979, challenging the impugned notice dated March 14, 1979 under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76 by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Range-II, Calcutta, and all proceedings pursuant thereto on the ground that there is no material and/or information in the possession of respondent No. 1 on which he has reason to believe that any income has escaped assessment in any of those two years and/or there is any omission or failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment for the relevant years and, as such, the conditions precedent for the exercise of jurisdiction by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 147 of the said Act do not exist. It is alleged that the power under Section 147 of the said Act has been sought to be utilised as a mere cloak or pretence for making a fishing and roving enquiry or investigation with the object of reopening the assessment and, as such, the conditions precedent necessary for the invoking of jurisdiction under the said section do not exist at all.
(2.) The contesting respondents have, however, produced the recorded reasons. The attention of the court has been drawn to the recorded reasons and a copy thereof has also been served upon the petitioner. It appears from the said recorded reasons that over a period of years prior to 1975-76 assessment, incomes of non-resident shipping companies including the assessee were being assessed by the application of Rule 10(ii) of the Income-tax Rules. In the course of the assessment for 1976-77, the Assessing Officer found that as a result of the assessments framed on the above basis, excess relief was given to the assessee for the earlier years. He, therefore, applied the provisions of Section 145(1) of the Act in framing the assessment for 1975-76. He was also of the view that it would be reasonable to hold that 1/6th of the gross earnings should be treated as the income embedded in the earnings. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has also upheld the action of the officer invoking the provisions of Section 145(1) of the Act. Consequently, the income for this year has been under-assessed. For the said reasons, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Range-II, Calcutta, believed that income chargeable to tax for the said year has escaped assessment and caused issuance of the impugned notice. It is also argued that such reasoning is not justified and there is lack of jurisdiction in issuing the impugned notice.
(3.) It is submitted on behalf of the contesting respondents that the acts done and/or caused to have been done by the respondents concerned in issuing the impugned notice are well justified in law. There is nothing contrary to and/or inconsistant with the provisions of law in this behalf. The petitioner may very well submit to the jurisdiction and place on record all relevant records which would be considered by the appropriate authority as the Income-tax Act is a complete code in itself and an abrupt visit to the writ court is an abuse of the process of law and it must be deprecated, if circumstances so demand.;