Skip to content


Shekhawati General Traders Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer, Company Circle I Jaipur. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberD.B. Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 104 and 105 of 1967
Reported in[1969]71ITR120(Raj)
AppellantShekhawati General Traders Ltd.
Respondentincome-tax Officer, Company Circle I Jaipur.
Cases ReferredEmerald & Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income
Excerpt:
- section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect -.....g. m. mehta j. - these two writ petitions under article 226 of the constitution by shekhawati general traders ltd. (hereinafter called the assessee) are a sequel to the notice in each case under section 148 of the income-tax act, 1961, (hereinafter called the act), by the income-tax officer, company circle no. 1, jaipur, praying for quashing the notice s and for restraining the income-tax officer from taking proceedings in pursuance thereof. the points involved in both the writ petitioners are common. they are, therefore, being decided by this judgment.we would first state the facts of writ petition no. 105/67. the assessee is a company within the meaning of the companies act, 1956, having it s registered officer at jaipur. for the assessment year 1962-63 relevant to the previous year.....
Judgment:

G. M. MEHTA J. - These two writ petitions under article 226 of the Constitution by Shekhawati General Traders Ltd. (hereinafter called the assessee) are a sequel to the notice in each case under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter called the Act), by the Income-tax Officer, Company Circle No. 1, Jaipur, praying for quashing the notice s and for restraining the Income-tax Officer from taking proceedings in pursuance thereof. The points involved in both the writ petitioners are common. They are, therefore, being decided by this judgment.

We would first state the facts of Writ Petition No. 105/67. The assessee is a company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956, having it s registered officer at Jaipur. For the assessment year 1962-63 relevant to the previous year ending 31st March, 1962, the assessee filed its income-tax return before the Income-tax Officer, Company Circle No. 1, Jaipur, respondent, in accordance with the provisions of the Act. On or about March 29, 1949, the assessee acquired 12,000 ordinary shares of the Orient Paper Mills Ltd., of Rs. 10 each and on this original holding received 12,000 bonus shares on or about April 28, 1951. i.e., sold before January 1, 1954. The assessee again received 60,000 bonus shares on or about June 4, 1954, and further acquired 25,200 right shares on June 26, 1961. Thus, in the assessment year 1962-63, there was an opening balance of 84,000 ordinary shares and 25,200 right shares of the Orient Papers Mills Ltd., with the assessee, out of which it sold 22,000 shares during the assessment year 1962-63 and the sale price realised was Rs. 8,45,110. The assessee calculated the cost price of 22,000 shares sold by it at the market rate as a prevailing on January 1, 1954, which came to Rs. 8,63,500.

The assessee had also acquired 15,000 ordinary shares of the Birla Jute . before January 1, 1954, and got 41,250 bonus shares on the original holding after January 1, 1954. Besides, the assessee got 22,500 right shares for the nominal value of Rs. 3,60,000. The assessee sold 15,000 shares during the assessment years 1962-63 and the sale price realised was RS. 4,54,130. The assessee calculated the cost price of 15,000 shares sold by it on the market value as prevailing on January 1, 1954, which came to Rs. 6,45,000. Thus, according to the assessee, the cost of acquisitition of the said shares in the two companies came to Rs. 15,09,400 while they were sold for Rs. 12,09,240 and thereby the assessee suffered a capital loss of Rs. 2,10,160. The statement showing capital loss suffered by to assessee had been annexed to the petition and is exhibit A.

The respondent, vide assessment order dated 20th July, 1964 (exhibit B) accepted the capital loss of Rs. 2,10,16 shown by the assessee and directed the same to be carried forward. the assessee has stated that, in spite of the aforesaid position, the respondent issued notice No. 2/S/Co./62-63 dated 4th January, 1967, which was served on the 5th January, 1967. By the said notice, the respondent informed the assess that he had reasons to believe that the income of the assessee chargeable to tax for the assessment year 1962-63 had escaped assessment with in the meaning of section 147 of the Act. He, therefore, asked the as says to deliver to him within 30 days from the date of service of the notice a return in the prescribed form of the income, on which it as assessable for the said assessment year. Thereafter, the Income-tax Officer, by his letter dated 7th January, 1967 (exhibit D), gave the grounds on the basis of which the said notice under section 148 of the Act had been issued. The reasons given by to respondent reads as follows :

'During the assessment years 1962-63 and 1964-65 you sold shares of Messrs. Birla Jute . While working out the cost you claimed the prevalent market prices as on January 1, 1954, in complete disregard of the fact that the same shares had been given bones shares in the subsequent years after January 1,1954. The Supreme Court had laid down in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Dalmia Investment Co Ltd1. that while working out the capital gains the cost has to be working out by averaging the cost of the original shares amongst the original shares and the bonus shares taken together. Your claim of the Cost, therefore, was incorrect. By following an erroneous method you claimed and were allowed loss of Rs. 2,10,160 in assessment year 1964-65. Against this the cost in assessment year 1962-63 would become much less and instead of capital losses a figure of capital gain will get computed. I have issued a notice under section 148 to withdraw the losses claimed and allowed and to reassess at profit.'

The petitioner has submitted to the aforesaid reasons given by the respondent are against the provisions of the Act. The cost of acquisition for purposes of computing the capital gain has to be taken at the fair market value as on 1st January, 1954, at the option of the assessee, which in this case was exercised by it. The petitioner has further submitted that the method of computing the cost of the shares suggested by the respondent can only be applied in a use where the option is not exercised by an assessee. According to the assessee, the notice under section 148 of the Act has been issued by the respondent erroneously and in complete disregard of the provisions of the law. The assessee has, therefore, requested that the said notice be quashed and the Income-tax Officer restrained from taking proceedings in pursuance thereof.

In his reply the respondents has contended that the assessee calculated the cost price of the shares sold by it incorrectly. The assessee had acquired 12,000 ordinary shares of the Orient Paper Mills Ltd. of Rs. 10 each got 12,000 bonus shares of the original holding before January, 1, 1954. After January 1, 1954, the assessee further acquired 60,000 ordinary any shares of the Orient Paper Mills. Thus, in the assessment years 1962-63 there was an opening balance of 84,000 shares of the Orient Paper Mills Ltd., out of which the assessee sold 22,000 during the year 1962-63 and the sale price realised was Rs. 8,45,110. The assessee calculated the cost price of 22,000 shares sold by it on the market price prevailing on January 1, 1954. According to the respondents, the assessee should have worked out the market price of 24,000 shares (the holding of the assessee as on January 1, 1954,) in accordance with the market rate prevailing on January 1, 1954, and should have spread that the price over 84,000 shares, which were inclusive of the bonus hares. The cost price of 22,000 shares should then have been taken at the average rate. In this way, the cast price of 22,000 would come to Rs. 2,46,714 instead of Rs. 8,63,500 shown by the assessee.

In the same way, in respect of the shares of the Birla Jute ., owned by the assessee, it should have taken the total cost of shares inclusive of the bonus shares as under :

Rs.

1. Cost of 15,000 shares applying the market rate as on 1-1-54 @ Rs.43.06

6,45,900

2. 41,250 bonus shares issued subsequently,the cost thereof

nil

3. 22,500 right shares issued in A.Y. 1962-63 before sale of the shares in question : the cost thereof @ Rs. 16 per share.

3,60,000

Total cost of 78,750 shares

10,05,900

Cost price of 15,000 shares sold by the assessee on average rate, i.e.

10,05,900x 15,000

1,91,600

78,750

The cost of 15,000 shares of the Birla Jute . claimed by the assessee in exhibit A is Rs. 6,45,900 against the actual worked out cost of Rs. 1,91,600 by apply in the method of calculating the cost price of shares as laid down by their Lordships in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Dalmia Investment Co. Ltd1. The respondents stand is that after the issue of bonus shares, the cost of the original holding has to be spread over all the shares inclusive of the bonus shares acquired on the original holding. The net result of calculating the cost of shares would be a capital gain of Rs. 8,60,926 as against a capital loss of Rs. 2,10,160 as shown for by the assessee.

The respondent has stated that the assessee did not disclose in his return for the assessment year 1962-63 fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment. In the Income-tax return filed by it, the assessee did not give out the details of the bonus and right shares acquired by it on the original holding, nor did it work out the cost price of the shares according to law as laid down by the Supreme Court in Dalmi Investment Companys case1 with the result that there was an escarpment of income, which ought to have been brought to tax. IT was not brought to the notice of the respondent that the assessee had acquird bonus and right shares on the original holding. Consequently, the assessment order, which was passed on 20th July, 1964, was based on insufficient data on account of the failure on the part of the assessee to supply full and complete particulars. The respondent has further stated that the assessee had no doubt an option under section 55(2) of the Act to take cost of acquisition or market value as on 1st January, 1954. But after exercising his option, the assessee should have spread the cost price as on January 1, 1954, over to original as well as the bonus and right share holding. The notice dated 4th January, 1967, under section 148 of the Act has been claimed as having been rightly issued. It was not necessary to disclose in the notice the reasons on which the respondents belief was based. However, the respondent intimate the reasons, which led him to issue the impugned notice by letter dated the 7th of January, 1967. The respondent has prayed that the writ petition be dismissed.

In Writ Petition NO. 104/1967, the assessee had acquired before January 1, 1954, 25,500 ordinary shares of the Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills. After January 1, 1954, the assessee acquired 34,000 bonus shares. In the assessment year 1962-63 the assessee had gifted 34,000 shares to Hindustan Charity Trust. Thus, in the assessment years 196465 relevant to the previous year ending 31 1st March, 1964, there was an opening balance of 25,500 shares of Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills, out of which the assessee sold 2,200 shares during the assessment year 1964-65 and the sale price realised was Rs. 59,324. The assessee calculated the cost piece of 2,200 shares sold by it on the market race prevailing on January 1, 1954. The cost of acquisition of these shares come to Rs. 1,04,500. The sale price was Rs. 59,324. There was thus a capital loss of Rs. 45,176 on the sale of the said 2,200 shares, which would appear from statment, exhibit A, filed along with the petition.

The respondent, vide assessment order dated 14th of January, 1965, accepted the capital loss of Rs. 45,176 for the assessment year 1964-65 and directed the said to be carried forward. On January 4, 1967, the assessee received notice under section 148 of the Act similar to the one issued in respect of the assessment year 1962-63 followed by reasons, as contained in the respondents letter dated January 7, 1967. The assessee has requested that the said notice be quashed on the same grounds as have been taken in the other cases.

The respondent has contended that the assessee should have averaged the cost price of 2,200 shares. If so done, the cost price of 2,200 shares would come to Rs. 44,785 instead of Rs. 1,04,500 shown by the assessee. Thus, the assessee followed a wholly erroneous method of calculating the cost of the shares. The cost claims by the assessee is Rs. 1,04,500 against the actual worked out cost of Rs. 44,785 by applying the method of calculating the cost of shares as laid down by the Supreme Court in Dalmia Investment Companys case1. After the issue of bonus shares of cost of the original holding has to be spread all over all the shares inclusve of the bonus shares inclusive of the bonus shares acquired on the original holding. The net result of calculating the cost of shares according to the method laid don in that case would e a capital gain of Rs. 14,539 as against a loss of Rs. 45,176 as shown by the assessee. The requested that the writ petition be dismissed.

Under section 45 of the Act, any profits or gains arising from the transfer of capital asset effected in the previous year shall, save as other is provided in sections 53 and 54 be chargeable to income-tax under the head 'Capital gains' 'and shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer took place. Under section 55(2) of the Act, 'cost of acquisition' in relation to a capital asset, where the capital asset become the property of the assessee before the 1st day of January, 1954, means the cost of the acquisition of the asset to the assessee or the fair market value of the asset on the 1st day of January, 1954, at the option of the assessee. The assessee has exercised its option to take the fair market value of the assets on January 1, 1954, as its cost of acquisition in computing the loss on the sale of the aforesaid scrips. The grievance of the respondent is that the assessee in its returns for both the years, did not show that it had acquired bonus and right shares on the original holding. This vital information was with held by the assessee from the respondent. Further, the assessee followed a wholly erroneous method of calculating the cost of the shares. In both the cases, bonus shares were admittedly issued and where bonus shares are issued in respect of ordinary shares, their real cost to the assessee cannot be taken to be nil. The cost of the original shares, according to the respondent, should have been spread over to the original shares and bonus shares collectively. Since this has not been done, there was an escapement of assessment of income in these two year is necessitating notice under section 148 of the act.

The Income-tax Officer could reopen the assessment in both the cases under section 147 of the Act which reads as follows :

'147. Income escaping assessment. - If -

(a) the Income-tax Officer has reason to believe that, by reason of the ommission or failure on the part of n assessee to make a return under section 139 for any assessment year to the Income-tax Officer or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment of the year, income chargeable to] tax has escaped assessment for that year, or

(b) notwithstanding that there has been no omission or failure as maintained in clause (a) on the part of the assessee, the Income-tax Officer has consequence of information in his possession reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year,

He may, subject to the provisions of section 148 to 153, assessee or reassess such income or recompute the loss or the depreciation allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessee year).'

Under section 147(a), reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment by reason of the omission or failure on the part of an assessee to make a return under section 139 for any assessment year to the Income-tax Officer or to disclose fully and truly all material fact necessary fair his assessment of that year is a condition precedent to the exercise of his jurisdiction to assessee or races income of the assessee. Similarly, under section 147(b), reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment in consequence of the information in the precession of the Income-tax Officer is a condition precedent to the exercise of his jurisdiction to assessee or reassess the income of the assessee. IF these condition do not exist, steps taken by the Income-tax Officer to assessee or races the income will be without jurisdiction. Before considering whether the conditions precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction by the Income-tax Officer under section 147 of the Act existed or not, it might be stated that the High Court has power to issue a writ in a fit case prohibiting the Income-tax Officer has no jurisdiction to commence the proceeding. In this connection we may refer to the two decision of the supreme Court.

In calcutta Discount Co Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer, Companies District I, Calcutta1, it has been held that it is well settled that through the writ of prohibition or certiorari will not issue against an executive authority, the High Court have power to issue an a fit case an order prohibition an executive authority from acting without authority. Where such act of an executive authority acting without jurisdiction subject or is likely to subject a person to, entry proceedings and unnecessary harassment, to High Court, it is well settled, will issue appropriate orders or direction to prevent such consequence. These observations have been reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. A. Raman & Co1. by observing that the High Court may issue a high prerogative writ prohibiting the Income-tax Officer from proceedings with reassessment when it appears that the Income-tax Officer had no jurisdiction to commence the proceedings.

Coming to the question of the application of section 147 to the two cases before us, it i an admitted position that the assessee, in the income-tax returns filed by it of the two years, did not give out the details o the bonus and right shares acquired by it on the original holding. The condition s which invest the Income-tax Officer with jurisdiction under section 147(a) are two-fold. Firstly, the Income-tax Officer should have reason to believe that the income chargeable to income-tax has escaped assessment and, secondly, that the escarpment is by reasons of the omission or failure on to part of the assessee to make a return or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that year. Since it is an accepted position that the acquisition of bonus and right shares acquired by the assessee on the original holding had not been shown in the income-tax returns in both the case, it can be said that the Income-tax Officer had reasons to believe that the income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment by reason of the omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment. On the material before him, the Income-tax Officer could have reasonably taken to view that it as a case of escarpment of assessment, for which notice under section 148 was necessary. Finding it to be a case of escarpment of during the years 1962-63 and 1964-65 he, therefore, gave notice to the assessee under section 148 in both the cases. In the circumstances of the cases, it cannot be said that the respondent has no reasons to believe that there was an escapetment of income-tax by the assessee on account of the omission or failure on its part to disclose fully and truly the material facts necessary for its assessment for that year.

Learned counsel for the assessee has submitted that it was not necessary for the assessee to have shown the acquisition of bonus shares in returns filed by him or for determination of the acquisition cost of the ordinary and bonus shares held by it and, for this proposition, he has relied on Emerald & Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax. The implications of the Emerald & Companys case have been considered by Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Dalmia Investment Co. and it would be useful to restate here what has been decided in Emerald & Companys case on the basis of that authority. In that case, the assessee had, at the beginning of the year, 350 shares of which 50 shares were bonus shares and claimed a loss of Rs. 35,801 by valuing the bonus shares at face value. The department arrived at a loss of Rs. 27,760 by the method of averaging the cost, following earlier case of the Bombay High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Manaklal Chunnilal and Sons Ltd. (Income-tax Reference No. 16 of 1948). The Tribunal suggested a third method. It ignored the 50 shares and the loss was calculated by considering the cost of 200 shares and their sale price. The loss worked out to Rs. 27,748, but the Tribunal did not disturb the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in view of the small difference. The High Court held that the method adopted by the department was proper, but the Supreme Court, on appeal, held in that case that the method adopted by the Tribunal was correct. The reason was that the assessee originally held 50 shares in 1950; in 1951 it received 50 bonus shares. It sold its originally holding three days later and then purchased another 100 shares after two months. In the financial year 1950-51 (assessment year 1951-52) the Income-tax Officer averaged the price of 150 shares and found a profit of Rs. 1,060 on the sale of shares instead of loss Rs. 1,365, which was claimed. The assessee did not appeal.

In the financial year 1951-52 (assessment year 1952-53), the assessee started with 150 shares (100 purchased, 50 bonus). It then purchased 200 shares in two lots and sold 300 shares, leaving 50 shares. The assessee company claimed a loss of Rs, 35,801. The Income-tax Officer computed the loss at Rs. 27,766 and the Tribunal computed the loss at Rs. 27,748. The Tribunal, however, did not disturb the loss as computed by the Income-tax Officer in view of the slender difference of Rs. 18. The High Courts decision was reversed by the Supreme Court because the High Court ignored all intermediate transactions and averaged the 300 shares with the 50 bonus shares. The shares in respect of which the bonus shares were issued were already average with the bonus shares. Since the average cost price of the original and bonus shares had already been fixed in an earlier year by the department, there was no question of further averaging. The decision of the Supreme Court in Emerald & Companys case is of no assistance to the assessee as bonus shares had been shown by the assessee-company in its return and had been averaged by the department.

We may next refer to Commissioner of Income-tax v. Dalmia Investment Co. which, according to the petitioner, does not apply to its case, whereas, according to the Income-tax Officer, it aptly applies. It would not be proper us to express our views at this stage whether it applies to the present case or not. It would suffice if we may state that has been decided in that case. In that case, it has been decided that where bonus shares are issued in respect of the ordinary shares, their real cost to the assessee cannot be taken to be nil or their face value. They have to be valued by spreading the cost of the old shares over the old shares and the new issue (viz., the bonus shares) taken together if they rank pari passu, and if they do not, the price may have to be adjusted either in proportion of the face value they bear (if there is no other circumstances to differentiate them) or on equitable considerations based on the market price before and after issue.

The assessee has stated that it was not necessary for it to have shown the bonus shares issued in respect of the ordinary shares held by it whereas the departments stand is that it was not necessary for the assessee to have shown the bonus shares held by it. Prima facie, it cannot be said that the Income-tax Officer had no reason to believe that there was an escapement of assessment on account of omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment for the years 1962-63 and 1964-65 requiring notice under section 148 of the Act given by the department in both the cases merits to be quashed. Both the writ petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed with costs.

BHANDARI J. - I agree with my learned brother.

The only question to be determined in these writ petitions is whether the Income-tax Officer, Company Circle No. 1, Jaipur (hereinafter called the Income-tax Officer), could have, in the circumstances of the cases, issued the notices under section 148 of the Indian Income-tax Act. For issuing notices, the conditions laid down under section 147 should be fulfilled.

As pointed out by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Calcutta Discount Company v. Income-tax Officer while interpreting section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 :

'To confer jurisdiction under this section to issue notice.. two conditions have.. to be satisfied. The first is that the Income-tax Officer must have reason to believe that income, profits or gains chargeable to income-tax have been under-assessed. The second is that he must have also reason to believe that such under-assessment has occurred by reason of either (i) omission or failure on the part of an assessee to make a return of his income under section 22, or (ii) omission or failure on the part of an assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that year.'

The same two conditions must be fulfilled under section 147(c) of the Act. It is urged that the Income-tax Officer had no reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax had been under-assessed as the assessee calculated the cost of acquisition of the various ordinary shares at the fair market value of these shares on January 1, 1954, which he was entitled to do under section 55(2) of the Act, and, after deducting the sale price which he realised from the sale of these ordinary shares, calculated the loss and all this was in conformity with the decision of their Lordship of the Supreme Court in Emerald & Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax. I do not think that this case lays down anything in favour of the assessee as in that case against the ordinary shares which had been sold, no bonus shares had been issued. It was a simple case in which the ordinary shares which had been purchased were sold, there being no issue of bonus shares between the period of purchase and sale. The shares in respect of which the bonus shares were issued had already been averaged with the bonus shares. This distinction has been pointed out by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Dalmia Investment Co. Thus, in the instant case, if the method laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Dalmia Investment Companys case is adopted, the Income-tax Officer had reason to believe that the assessee had escaped assessment.

The second condition is that such under-assessment must have occurred by reason of omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment. On this point, it is contended by the petitioner that the letter dated January 7, 1967, sent by the Income-tax Officer did not give the reason that the petitioner had omitted to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment. The Income-tax Officer has said in that letter 'While working out the cost you claimed the prevalent market price as on January 1, 1954, in complete disregard on the fact that the same shares had been given bonus shares in the subsequent years after January 1, 1954'. On a proper interpretation of this passage in the letter, I am left in no manner of doubt in the circumstances of the case that the Income-tax Officer meant to say and did say that, the petitioner had omitted to disclose the material fact that bonus shares had been obtained on the ordinary shares held by the assessee. It is not denied that in the return filed by the petitioner, it was not mentioned that, on the basis of ordinary shares sold, bonus shares had been obtained by the petitioner. It is contended that it was no part of his duty to disclose this fact. In my opinion, as laid down by the Supreme Court, the words 'omission or failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment for that year' postulate a duty on every assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment. I am further of the opinion that non-disclosure of the bonus shares obtained on the basis of the ordinary shares sold by the assessee was non-disclosure of a primary fact and this is what the Income-tax Officer meant to convey to the assessee in his letter that the assessee had completely disregarded the fact that the shares sold by him had been given bonus shares in the subsequent years after January 1, 1954. In this view of the matter, the second condition for the application of section 147(a) is also fulfilled.

The Income-tax Officer has not said that in consequence of an information he had received he had reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment and for that reason clause (b) of section 147 is not applicable to the circumstances of these cases.

However, the case of the petitioner is covered by section 147(a). The notices issued under section 148 are not bad in law. The writ petitions, therefore, deserve to be dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //