1971 (3) TMI 45

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ections 142(1) and 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. I am unable to accept this contention. It has to be further noted that the order under section 132 has not been challenged in this application. Merely because there has been a seizure under section 132, in my opinion, sections 143 and 144 of the Income-tax Act do not become inapplicable. The notice that was given in this case was a notice which could have been reasonably complied with if the petitioner had availed itself of the provisions of sections 132(9) and 132(10) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The petitioner did not make any attempt to avail itself of the said provisions nor did the petitioner make any attempt to comply with the notice. I have dealt with this contention in the judgm....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....proposition on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria, where the Supreme Court has observed that an assessee having once filed an appeal could not withdraw it. This, however, can only apply so far as the assessment order is concerned. This observation cannot apply to the question of an order under section 184(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, cancelling the registration of the petitioner. Where an assessee has resorted to the alternative forum this court should not entertain an application under article 226 of the Constitution. Reliance may be placed on the decision of this court in the case of Sheo Nath Singh v. Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax. I....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....petitioner the same. Mr. Banerjee contended that reliance was made on conjectures and surmises and the order was not fair. I am, however, unable to accept this contention. In an order under section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, there is bound to be certain amount of guess-work. For this proposition reliance may be placed on the decision of the Judicial Committee in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Laxminarain Badridas, where the Privy Council, dealing with section 23(4) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, stated that the officer concerned was to make an assessment to the best of his judgment against a person who was in default as regards supplying information. The officer must not act dishonestly or vindictively or capriciously ....