TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1968 (2) TMI 34
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....61 (Act 43 of 1961), for a writ in the nature of prohibition to restrain the Income-tax Officer from proceeding with the threatened assessment, and for an appropriate writ, direction and order asking him to withdraw the said notice. The facts leading to this petition may be shortly stated. On 19th September, 1956, the customs authorities seized 528 tolas, 112 grams of gold in the shape of ingots after it was brought to the National Refinery, by M/s. Poonamchand Gulabchand, Bombay, for purposes of remelting, acting on prior information that smuggled gold was being taken from Raipur for that purpose. The gold was sent to Bombay by M/s. Lalchand Santoshkumar, Raipur, for disposal. The carrier of the gold from Raipur was an employee of that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e gold and to bring the escaped income to tax in proper hands. The impugned notice to the Hindu undivided family " Deepchand Phoolchand Daga ", is in the following terms : " NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. No. 205-D C-WARD, RAIPUR, Income-tax Officer, Dated the 18-6-1965. To Shri Deepchand Phoolchand Daga, Raipur (H. U. F.) Whereas I have reason to believe that your income chargeable to tax for the assessment year 1957-58 has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. I, therefore, propose to assess the income for the said assessment year and I hereby require you to deliver to me within 30 days from the date of service of this notice, a return in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... sufficient reason for the issuance of these notices for the assessment year 1957-58, when the possession of such a large quantity of gold by the parties concerned was disproportionate to their disclosed sources of income. Apart from this, the petitioner himself had claimed before the customs authorities that the gold belonged to him. This assertion was reiterated by him in a statement recorded by the Income-tax Officer on 28th September, 1960. He again claimed the gold to be his in his letter dated 6th May, 1963, to the Income-tax Officer. In view of all this, the petitioner cannot be heard to say that there was no basis for the satisfaction of the Commissioner or no material on which the Income-tax Officer could act. The learned counse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is the notice under section 139(2), and section 148 read with section 147, merely authorises the issue of such a notice [see P. R. Mukherjee v. Commissioner of Income-tax]. This view has now been reiterated by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Kantamani Venkatanarayana & Son v. First Addl. Income-tax Officer. It must, accordingly, be held that the notice under section 148, read with section 147, is not vitiated on account of the failure by the Income-tax Officer to specify under which of the two clauses, clause (a) or (b) of section 147, it was issued. The learned counsel for the petitioner, lastly, contends that the notice of reassessment is barred by limitation, by reason of section 149(1)(b). In support of his contention, the l....