Om Prakash, C. J. Heard counsel for the parties.
2. By means of the Original Petition giving rise to the instant appeal, the petitioner (appellant herein) sought quashing of Exts. P2 and P4. Ext. P2 is a notice under section 158BD of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and Ext. P4 is a pre-assessment notice.
2. By means of the Original Petition giving rise to the instant appeal, the petitioner (appellant herein) sought quashing of Exts. P2 and P4. Ext. P2 is a notice under section 158BD of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and Ext. P4 is a pre-assessment notice.
3. The facts, briefly, are that a search was conducted on the premises of the petitioner's husband and then certain documents were seized pointing out that the petitioner was in possession of undisclosed income. That information was passed on to the assessing officer of the petitioner. The file of the petitioner was transferred from her assessing officer to the assessing officer of her husband. It is not disputed that the assessing officer of the petitioner and the assessing officer of her husband both sit in the same town. The contention of the petitioner was that before transfer of her case, an opportunity should have been given to her. Section 127(3) of the Act clearly provides that nothing in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be deemed to require any such opportunity to be given where the transfer is from any assessing officer to any other assessing officer, provided the offices of such assessing officers are situated in the same city/locality or place. Since the assessing officer of the petitioner and the assessing officer whom the file is transferred hold office in the same city, the case is fully covered by sub-section (3) and no notice before the case is transferred was required to be given to the petitioner.
3. The facts, briefly, are that a search was conducted on the premises of the petitioner's husband and then certain documents were seized pointing out that the petitioner was in possession of undisclosed income. That information was passed on to the assessing officer of the petitioner. The file of the petitioner was transferred from her assessing officer to the assessing officer of her husband. It is not disputed that the assessing officer of the petitioner and the assessing officer of her husband both sit in the same town. The contention of the petitioner was that before transfer of her case, an opportunity should have been given to her. Section 127(3) of the Act clearly provides that nothing in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be deemed to require any such opportunity to be given where the transfer is from any assessing officer to any other assessing officer, provided the offices of such assessing officers are situated in the same city/locality or place. Since the assessing officer of the petitioner and the assessing officer whom the file is transferred hold office in the same city, the case is fully covered by sub-section (3) and no notice before the case is transferred was required to be given to the petitioner.
4. Then comes the challenge to Ext. P4 pre-assessment notice. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner (appellant) that the notice refers to the disclosed income of her husband and not to any undisclosed income of the petitioner herself. From the perusal of the records, it clearly appears that during search operation, it was discovered that the petitioner was in possession of undisclosed income and hence notice issued under section 158BD of the Act, cannot be said to be without jurisdiction or per se illegal.
4. Then comes the challenge to Ext. P4 pre-assessment notice. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner (appellant) that the notice refers to the disclosed income of her husband and not to any undisclosed income of the petitioner herself. From the perusal of the records, it clearly appears that during search operation, it was discovered that the petitioner was in possession of undisclosed income and hence notice issued under section 158BD of the Act, cannot be said to be without jurisdiction or per se illegal.
With these reasons, the appeal fails and is dismissed.
OPEN