Bombay H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, proceedings initiated by the ITO with the notices under s. 148 of the IT Act were bad in law and void ?

Counsel Appeared

G.S. Jetly, A. Shelat & S.G. Aney, for the Revenue : C.J. Thakkar & N.J. Thakkar, for the Assessee

S.P. BHARUCHA, J.:

Notices were issued by the ITO to the assessee on March 15, 1972, under s. 148 of the IT Act, 1961. One notice opened with these words ” Whereas I have reason to believe that your income/the income of 1956-57 chargeable to tax for the assessment year in respect of which you are assessable, viz., 1957-58, has escaped assessment within the meaning of s. 147 of the IT Act, 1961 “. The other notice opened with the same formula, except that the year first mentioned was 1957-58 and second the year 1958-59. Both notices informed the assessee that the ITO proposed to reassess the income for the assessment years mentioned therein and called for returns. The only ground upon which the Tribunal has thought it fit to set aside these notices and, consequently, the initiation of proceedings under s. 147 is that ” there was a real ambiguity in the notices “

2. Mr. Thakkar, learned counsel for the assessee, has made a vehement attempt to defend the indefensible. It is patent to anyone who has the slightest acquaintance with the law of income-tax that when in the first notice the ITO referred to ” the income of 1956-57 “, he was referring to the income of the assessee’s previous year and when he referred to the year 1957-58, he was referring to the assessment year. Similarly, in the second. There is not the slightest ambiguity in the notices. What is more, the assessee filed returns pursuant to the notices. It did not, apparently, find any ambiguity at that stage.

3. The only question that we are called upon to answer reads thus: ” Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, proceedings initiated by the ITO with the notices under s. 148 of the IT Act were bad in law and void ? “

4. It relates to the conclusion of the Tribunal in relation to these ambiguities “. Finding none, we answer the question, without more ado, in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. We find it needless to go into the facts in these circumstances.

5. The Tribunal, having regard to its conclusion upon the ” ambiguities “, found it unnecessary to go into the other ground raised on behalf of the Revenue in the appeal and the other grounds raised on behalf of the assessee in its cross-objections. The Tribunal shall now go into these grounds.

[Citation : 171 ITR 481]