A. S. BAINS J. - The petitioner is a proprietor of the firm, M/s. Ganga Sahai Kishori Lal and is being assessed as an individual. The present proceedings pertain to the assessment year 1968-69. Respondent issued notice to the petitioner under s. 139(2) of the I.t. Act (hereinafter called 'the Act') on 20th July, 1968. In the meantime the department searched the premised s of the petitioner and seized certain materials on 3rd of September, 1969. The proceedings were first pending before the ITO, C-Ward, Bhatinda. Later on, these were transferred to the ITO, A-Ward, Bhatinda. A return was filed by the petitioner on 6th of January, 1971. In the meantime, the department issued notice under s. 147 of the Act on 1st of November, 1969. Another notice was issued on 5th of April, 1972, after the filing of the return. The department was not satisfied with the particulars given in the return, so the petitioner was asked to produce the books of account, vide notice dated 5th of April, 1972. This is annex. C to the petition. the petitioner filed a reply to this notice on 10th of May, 1972. Another notice was issued on 27th of January, 1973. This is annexed with the petition as annex E. It is in this situation that the present petition has been filed.
Return has been filed on behalf of the respondent, wherein the ITO has controverted the allegations in the petition. The stand of the ITO is that since there was a search and seizure, as a result of which voluminous material in the shape of books and documents was seized from the premises of the petitioner, it was a case of concealment and the proceedings fell under s. 153(1)(b) and on under s. 153(1)(a)(ii) of the Act and that the case fell under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, where the limitation was eight years and not three years.
Mr. Bhagirath Dass, learned counsel for the appellant canvassed that his grievance is only against the notice issued under s. 147 of the Act. This notice is annex. B which he has now produced. He further submitted that this notice could not be issued during the pendency of the proceedings and that this could be issued only after the completion of the assessment proceedings. This legal position seems to be correct, but Mr. Awasthy, learned counsel for the Revenue, contends that this notice (annex. B) can be ignored as the case was being processed on the basis of the return filed by the petitioner-assessee on 6th of January, 1971.
Accordingly, it is directed that the notice, annex. B, issued under s. 147 of the Act will be ignored by the ITO and other proceedings will continue in accordance with law. There will be no order as costs.