1991 JTR(Cal) 305
1992 198 ITR 748
High Court of Calcutta
Ruma Pal, J.
J.C. Mukherjee – Appellant
Versus
Income Tax Officer – Respondent
Civil Rule 5111(W) of 1981
Decided On : Jun 18, 1991
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the satisfaction required under Section 151(1) of the Income Tax Act for the issuance of a notice under Section 148 must be met, and the absence of such satisfaction renders the notice invalid.
Act
Referred
:CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.226
INCOME TAX ACT : S.148
Section 148 - Income Tax Act - The court quashed a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1964-65, as the satisfaction required under Section 151(1) of the Act was not met.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1964-65.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the satisfaction required under Section 151(1) of the Act for the issuance of the notice was not met, as it was arrived at by the Under Secretary of the Central Board of Direct Taxes and not by the Board as required.
Issues: The main issue was the absence of the satisfaction of the Board as required under Section 151(1) of the Act for the issuance of the notice under Section 148.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that as the condition precedent to the issuance of the notice under Section 148 was absent, the notice could not survive and was accordingly quashed.
Final Decision: The court made the rule absolute and quashed the notice, with no order as to costs.
Section 148 - Income Tax Act - The court quashed a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1964-65, as the satisfaction required under Section 151(1) of the Act was not met.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1964-65.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the satisfaction required under Section 151(1) of the Act for the issuance of the notice was not met, as it was arrived at by the Under Secretary of the Central Board of Direct Taxes and not by the Board as required.
Issues: The main issue was the absence of the satisfaction of the Board as required under Section 151(1) of the Act for the issuance of the notice under Section 148.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that as the condition precedent to the issuance of the notice under Section 148 was absent, the notice could not survive and was accordingly quashed.
Final Decision: The court made the rule absolute and quashed the notice, with no order as to costs.
A.C. Moitra, R.C. Prasad, R.K. Murarka, Ajoy Dev
Judgment
Ruma Pal, J.
1. THE petitioner has challenged a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). THE notice is dated February 20, 1991, and is in respect of the assessment year 1964-65. Although the respondents have not filed any affidavit-in-opposition at the hearing today, the recorded reasons have been disclosed. Annexed with the recorded reasons is the sanction under Section 151 of the Act prior to the amendment purported to have been given by the Central Board of Direct Taxes.
2. THE proceedings being after the period of eight years, no notice under Section 148 could have been issued unless the Board was satisfied that it was a fit case for the issue of such notice. THE satisfaction appears to have been arrived at by the Under Secretary of the Central Board of Direct Taxes. It is not disputed by Mr. A. C. Moitra, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents, that such satisfaction is not the satisfaction of the Board as required under Section 151(1) of the Act. THE condition precedent to the issuance of notice under Section 148, therefore, being absent, the notice cannot survive and is, accordingly, quashed. THE rule is made absolute. There will be no order as to costs.