JUDGMENT B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.
1. The petitioner is asking for a writ of cer-tiorari, quashing the notice dated October 8, 1987, issued by the Income-tax Officer, BWard, Moradabad (respondent No. 1), under Section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act.
2. The petitioner filed a return for the assessment year 1986-87, showing an income of Rs. 71,580 before the Income-tax Officer, C-Ward, Circle-1, Moradabad. Subsequently, his case was transferred to respondent No. 1. In connection with his assessment, respondent No. 1 issued the impugned notice calling upon him to produce his accounts relating to the said assessment year. Soon after receiving the said notice, the petitioner approached this court by way of this writ petition.
3. The case of the petitioner is this : The Income-tax Department has published an advertisement appearing in Hindustan Times, New Delhi Edition, dated September 1, 1987, with the caption "WE TRUST YOU". The said advertisement stated that all returns showing income/loss up to Rs. 2 lakhs will be accepted without calling the assessee. The advertisement reads as follows :
"WE TRUST YOU Now we trust you more, The limits for acceptance of returns without calling the taxpayers have now been enhanced to :
(a) In a company case with a return income/loss up to Rs. 50,000.
(b) In the cases of trusts and charitable institutions up to an income of Rs. 1 lakh before applying Section 11 provided the corpus of the trust does not exceed Rs. 5 lakhs.
(c) In all other cases with a return of income/loss up to Rs. 2 lakhs.
HOWEVER This scheme does not apply to search and seizure cases, cases to be assessed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) and Income-tax Officers of Central Circle and those cases which have been reopened under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
This scheme will apply subject to the above exception for all present assessments including pending assessments as on April 1, 1987.
YOU NOW HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO FILE COMPLETE AND CORRECT RETURN OF INCOME.
INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT PAY YOUR TAXES CORRECTLY AND PROMPTLY"
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner says that this advertisement is really based upon the instructions issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes to all the Commissioners, contained in the letter of the Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes, dated May 21, 1987. Particular reliance is placed upon annexure II to the said letter. In so far as it is relevant, it reads thus :
"A. Summary Assessment :
The following types of cases shall be disposed of under the summary assessment scheme ;--
(a) Company cases with returned income/loss up to Rs. 50,000.
(b) Trust cases and cases of charitable institutions having income up to Rs. 1 lakh before applying the provisions of Section 11, provided the corpus of the trust does not exceed Rs. 5 lakhs.
(c) All other cases having returned income/loss up to Rs. 2 lakhs.
2. The Summary Assessment Scheme shall not apply to the following cases :
(a) Search and seizure cases.
(b) Cases assigned to Inspecting Assistant Commissioners (Assessment) and Income-tax Officers (Central Circle),
(c) Cases to be assessed or reassessed under Section 147.
But for the above exceptions, the summary assessment scheme shall apply to all cases assessed in all Wards and Circles.
3. The Summary Assessment Scheme as modified in para I above shall apply to all assessments including the pending assessments brought forward on April 1, 1987 .. .
B. Sample scrutiny assessments :
(1) Two per cent. of the cases completed under summary assessment scheme in the year 1986-87 shall be selected for sample scrutiny. The method of selection is set out in annexure III.
(2) While doing sample scrutiny, the preceding assessments except those covered by the Amnesty Scheme should also be scrutinised with a view to finding out whether any action for recoupment of escaped revenue is necessary under Section 143(2)(b), 147, 154 or 263. Such action should be taken immediately after the escapement is detected.
C. Selective scrutiny of old cases :
Each Inspecting Assistant Commissioner would inspect the cases completed under the Summary Assessment Scheme in 1986-87 and select 100 suspect assessments for scrutiny. This selection shall be made on the basis of information as regards tax evasion and scope for detection of concealment. As far as possible, the 100 cases selected by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner should be evenly spread out amongst the summary Income-tax Officers in the range. The proceedings in such cases shall be initiated under Section 143(2)(b) or Section 147, as the case may be,"
5. Based upon the above, counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vikram Gulati,' contends that inasmuch as the petitioner's return was for a sum of less than Rs. 2 lakhs and also because his case does not fall under any of the three exceptions mentioned in para 2 of annexure II, the Income-tax Officer was bound to accept it without calling him. He says that the Income-tax Officer has no jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice under Section 143(2). His case is that the Income-tax Officer was bound to process his return under the Summary Assessment Scheme and that neither his return can be questioned nor could a notice under Section 143(2) be issued.
6. We find it difficult to agree with learned counsel. Firstly, the advertisement published in the newspaper does not purport to be based upon any circular or instructions issued by the Board. The advertisement cannot be equated to law nor can it be relied upon to deprive the Income-tax Officer of the statutory powers vested in him by law. No plea of estoppel of any kind can also be pleaded in such a situation.
7. Now, coming to the letter dated 21st May, 1987, it does not purport to be an order, direction or instruction of the Board as such. It is a letter from the Chairman of the Board addressed to the Commissioners. It speaks of an "action plan for 1987-88". The action plan was meant to reduce the workload of the Department and, at the same time, to check against any abuse or unfair advantage being taken by unscrupulous assessees of the said Scheme. We called upon counsel repeatedly to point out any recital in the letter which shows that it has been issued by the Board. He could not. It, therefore, cannot be treated as an instruction, order or direction within the meaning of Section 119. It is more in the nature of a set of administrative instructions. The instructions are meant for the guidance of the officers. They cannot and do not create any legal right in the assessee. More particularly, the instructions contained therein cannot be read or construed as depriving the Income-tax Officer of the undoubted powers vested in him by law including the one conferred by Section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act. Support for this proposition can be had from the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of J. R. Raghupathy v. State of A. P., AIR 1988 SC 1681, where, dealing with the instructions issued by the State Government to Collectors, it was observed that they were merely intended to regulate the manner in which Collectors should act in the matter of formation of Revenue Mandals and the location of their headquarters. It was observed that those guidelines do not have statutory force and do not create legal rights in favour of the citizens which can be enforced through the court.
8. Learned counsel, for the petitioner cited several decisions a.s to the effect and nature of the circulars and instructions issued by the Board under Section 110 of the Act. It is not necessary for us to refer to them since we have held that the letter relied upon does not contain the instructions or orders of the Hoard but, that if contains only a set of administra live instructions issued by the Chairman for the guidance of the officers. Be that as it may, one tiling is clear : These instructions cannot deprive the Income-tax Officers of the powers vested in them by the statute. For depriving them of such statutory powers, something more than a letter or a set of instructions from the Chairman of the Board is required.
9. We may add that though the writ petition asks for the issuatice of a writ of certiorari, it is in reality a request for a writ, of prohibition. It is well-settled that unless total want of jurisdiction is made out, a writ of prohibition would not issue. We are not satisfied that the Income-tax Officer had no jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 143(2) of the Act.
10. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed with costs.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner made an oral request for leave to appeal to the Supremo Court under Article 138 of the Constitution of India. We do not however, think that this case involves a substantial question of law of general importance, which, in our opinion, is required to be considered by the Supreme Court. The oral request is rejected.