Broad income-tax notice powers extend to relevant business books, and no reference lies absent a live legal question.

A notice power framed in broad terms was read to allow the Income-tax Officer to require production of books and documents relevant to assessed income, including account books of the Srinagar business where the income was received at Rawalpindi. The Assistant Commissioner was expected to examine whether the Income-tax Officer had properly proceeded under the stated provision, but on the facts he was satisfied that the proceedings were within jurisdiction. No referable question arose, and the request for reference failed because the proposed questions were answered against the applicant on the merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Income-tax Officer had power under section 22(4) to require production of account books relating to the Srinagar business. (ii) Whether the Assistant Commissioner was bound to examine the proceedings to satisfy himself that the Income-tax Officer had correctly proceeded under section 23(4).

Issue (i): Whether the Income-tax Officer had power under section 22(4) to require production of account books relating to the Srinagar business.

Analysis: The provision was construed broadly. Once a notice under section 22(2) had been served, the Income-tax Officer could require production of such accounts or documents as he considered necessary. As income from the Srinagar business was received at Rawalpindi, the books relating to that business were within the scope of the demand.

Conclusion: The Income-tax Officer had power to call for the Srinagar account books, and refusal to refer this question was justified.

Issue (ii): Whether the Assistant Commissioner was bound to examine the proceedings to satisfy himself that the Income-tax Officer had correctly proceeded under section 23(4).

Analysis: The Assistant Commissioner was not entitled to abstain merely because the Income-tax Officer had described his action as under section 23(4). Ordinarily, he should satisfy himself that the proceedings were in order. On the facts, however, he was satisfied that the Income-tax Officer had acted within his powers.

Conclusion: No referable question arose on this ground, and the refusal to refer was proper.

Final Conclusion: The application failed because both proposed questions were answered against the applicant on the merits and no basis existed for compelling a reference.

Ratio Decidendi: A notice power expressed in wide terms will be construed to permit production of relevant books and documents connected with the assessed income, and a reference will not be compelled where the subordinate authority has correctly exercised jurisdiction and no live question of law remains.

---