Court affirms assessment validity under Section 144, dismisses challenge. Failure to raise notice issue earlier.

The court upheld the validity of the assessment conducted under Section 144 and subsequent orders passed, dismissing the writ petition challenging the assessment orders. The court found that the petitioner failed to establish a case warranting interference, noting that contentions regarding the absence of specific notices were not raised before the revisional authority and could not be introduced for the first time in court. The court concluded that the notices issued fulfilled statutory requirements, affirming the assessment under Section 144.

---

---

Issues:
1. Assessment under Section 144 without issuing notice under Section 143(2).
2. Disallowance of interest paid on capital deposit and remuneration to partners.
3. Revision under Section 264 challenging assessment orders.
4. Contention regarding absence of statutory notices and circumstances for assessment under Section 144.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a partnership firm, filed a return for the assessment year 1995-96. The firm was issued a notice under Section 143(2) and subsequently an assessment order was passed under Section 144 determining the taxable income. The petitioner appealed against the order disallowing interest on capital deposit and partner's remuneration, which was later allowed by the appellate authority (Ext.P6).

2. Following this, the assessing officer issued another notice (Ext.P7) for producing chalans, but proceeded to complete the assessment under Section 144 without further notice. The petitioner filed a revision under Section 264 challenging the assessment orders (Ext.P8 and P9), which was dismissed (Ext.P12). The revisional authority held that the assessment under Section 144 was independent of the previous assessment under Section 143(1)(a).

3. The petitioner contended that no notice under Section 143(2) was issued before the assessment under Section 144 (Ext.P8). They argued that the assessment under Section 144 could only be completed under specific circumstances, which were absent in this case. The petitioner also claimed that the notice as required by the proviso to Section 144(1) was not issued.

4. However, the court noted that the contentions regarding the absence of notices under Section 143(2) and the proviso to Section 144(1) were not raised before the revisional authority. The court held that arguments not presented before the statutory authorities cannot be raised for the first time in court. It was observed that the notices issued (Ext.P4 and Ext.P7) fulfilled the requirements under Section 143(2) and the proviso to Section 144(1).

5. The court concluded that the petitioner failed to establish a case warranting interference. The writ petition challenging the assessment orders was dismissed, upholding the validity of the assessment conducted under Section 144 and the subsequent orders passed.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides insights into the issues raised, the contentions presented by the petitioner, and the court's reasoning leading to the dismissal of the writ petition.

---