JUDGMENT
1. This petition has been brought impugning a notice dated March 30, 2001, annexure 4 to the writ petition, issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The notice is in the context of incomes of a Hindu undivided family on which the assessee was assessable to tax for the assessment year 1993-94.
2. It needs to be mentioned that earlier to this notice of March 30, 2001, under Section 148 (indicated to the court as having been received on the date as in the notice), another notice No. 5692, dated March 1, 2001 (annexure 3), was also received by the assessee. This was a notice issued by the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Range, Patna.
3. Neither of the two notices referred to, that is, the one dated March 1, 2001, and the other dated March 30, 2001, under Section 148 of the Act were responded to or replied by the assessee. These notices have been in the hands of the assessee for almost three and half months. The writ petition mentions nothing that on the receipt of the notice of March 1, 2001, issued by the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Patna, the assessee responded to it by
either answering enquiries or giving an explanation or a reply. The notice dated March 30, 2001, under Section 148 of the Act was consequential, and this is accepted.
4. Perhaps, if the assessee had responded to the notice of March 1, 2001, then, the subsequent stage may not have arrived. On this aspect there is nothing on the record of the petition. In so far as the notice under Section 148 is concerned, the issue is not that no reason has been recorded as it is accepted that reasons are on record and the notice was issued subsequently.
5. The first submission which was made on behalf of the assessee is that the Income-tax Officer has no jurisdiction to issue a notice under Section 148 and in the circumstances this notice is bad, as there is lack of jurisdiction in the authority issuing it, and the notice needs to be quashed. The court is not impressed by this submission as in the absence of any objections by the assessee before the Income-tax Officer, who had issued the notice, it will not be appropriate for the court to comment on this aspect. Suffice it to say that there is no lack of jurisdiction in issuance of a notice under Section 148 provided the conditions set in this section are met.
6. The case of ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das [1976] 103 ITR 437 was cited to persuade the court that the matter is fit for issue of notice on the writ petition and for quashing the notice under Section 148 of the Act. A careful reading of this case shows that the context has been torn out on submissions as made. This case explains that the Commissioner should be satisfied on the reasons recorded by the Income-tax Officer that it is a fit case for issue of such notice. It is in this very case that the Supreme Court has observed upon the duty which is cast upon an assessee to make a true and full disclosure of the primary facts at the time of the original assessment and that the duty of the assessee in any case does not extend beyond making a true and full disclosure of primary facts. Further, it was observed in this case, that where the grounds are adequate or not is not a matter for the court to investigate.
7. In the present case, the court has a situation where the assessee has received two notices, that is, one dated March 1, 2001, from the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, and the other dated March 30, 2001, under Section 148 of the Act and the assessee has not responded to either of the notices.
8. The court considers that this is not the stage at which the High Court should interfere. At first the assessee should raise his objections, whatever they may be, before the authorities, who have issued notices, or respond to the notices already delayed by three and half months, instead of coming to the High Courts, in its writ jurisdiction, straightaway.
9. Thus, consigned.