Civil Misc. Writ. Appln. No.9 of 1956. Case: Kartick Kumar Bhattacharjee Vs B. N. S. Barathakur.
| Case Number | Civil Misc. Writ. Appln. No.9 of 1956 |
| Counsel | For Petitioner: S.K. Mitter Bar-at-law, A.K. Sen Bar-at-law, H.N. Sen. H.R. Sen, M.R. Choudhury and A.C. Chakrsvorty, Advs. and For Respondent: S.K. Ghosh, J.P. Bhattacharjee and P.K. Bhattacharjee Govt. Advocate |
| Judges | Datta, J.C. |
| Issue | Constitution of India - Article 226 |
| Citation | AIR 1957 Tripura 15 |
| Judgement Date | July 09, 1956 |
Order:
-
This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for an appropriate Writ commanding the respondent, the income-tax Officer, Agartala to forbear from giving effect to the orders of assessment made under S. 23(4) of the Income-tax Act on 20-10-1955 and taking any steps for enforcing the notices of demand issued in pursuance of those orders.
-
The petitioner Shri Kartick Kumar Bhattacharjee is the proprietor of a wine shop situated at Agartala and carries on some other business also His income for the assessment years 1953-54 and 1954-55 (account period 1-4-1952 to 31-3-1953 and 1-4-1953 to 31-3-1954) was adjudged by the respondent by two assessment orders dated 25-3-1954 and 14-1-1955 at Rs. 5066/- and Rs. 16,843/- respectively and. in accordance with the notices of demand issued, the petitioner paid the income-tax as assessed for those periods.
-
In August, 1955 the respondent served on the petitioner two notices purporting to be under S. 34 read with S. 22(2), Income-tax Act, calling upon the petitioner to file returns of his total income and total world income for the same account years, namely, 1952-53 and 1953-54 not later than 20-9-1955. The petitioner complied with these notices by filing returns showing the same incomes as he had shown in the returns filed in the previous assessment cases for these periods and referred to above.
-
On 6-9-1955, the petitioner sent a letter to the respondent that he was going to Delhi for some urgent work and no steps may be taken in the proceedings until his return from Delhi. On 19-9-1955, the respondent issued two notices, one for each account year to the petitioner under S. 22(4) asking him to produce or cause to be produced certain accounts and account books stated in the said notices on 26-9-1955 at his office at Agartala.
On 20-5-1955, the respondent further issued two notices under S. 23(2) asking the petitioner to appear in person or through a representative on 26-9-1955 for the purpose of giving further information that was needed by the respondent and to produce the documents and other evidence on which the returns filed by the petitioner were based. The notices also informed the petitioner that failure to comply may entail assessment by respondent to the best of his judgment and may further entail a penalty under S. 28 of the Act.
-
On 26-9-1955, Mr. M. Goswami a representative of the petitioner appeared before the respondent and filed an application for adjournment for 20 days, as the petitioner had not returned from Delhi. According to the petitioner the respondent agreed to adjourn the cases but the adjourned date was not communicated to the said representative.
-
On or about 1-10-1955, the petitioner received a letter from the respondent that his cases were fixed for 7-10-1955 for complying with the said notices under Ss. 22(4) and 23(2).
-
Mr. M. Goswami, petitioner's representative, appeared on 7-10-1955 before the respondent, and petitioner's allegation is, that his representative appeared before the respondent with all relevant books and papers, but the respondent did not take up the cases and adjourned them without fixing any date, and an affidavit of Goswami has been filed in support.
On behalf of the respondent, it is admitted that the representative did appear on that...
To continue reading
Request your trial