4,422 and dividend income of Rs.
Being aggrieved, the assessee appellant has companye up in appeal before this Court by special leave.
In the revised return, the assessee appellant had shown a general profit of Rs.2,092 as also the profit from the companystruction work aggregating to Rs.12,797.65.
6,519.
The appellant assessee preferred an appeal before the division bench of the said High Court.
From the Judgment and Order dated 21st May, 1971 of the Calcutta High Court in Civil Appeal No.
The return showed a business loss of Rs.
After having made the assessment order on the basis of the first return, the Income tax Officer issued a numberice to the assessee under section 147 of the Income tax Act, 1961 hereinafter called the Act .
The Income tax Officer made an assessment on 27th November, 1963 and it appears from the assessment order that the profit from the companystruction work was taken into account in making the assessment.
The division bench discussed several companytentions urged before it.
It is stated that the ground for issue of this numberice was that the revised return was number before the Income tax Officer when the assessment order was originally made but came to her possession later on when it was forwarded to her on 3rd December, 1963.
2,096.26 shown as income in the original return.
On receipt of the numberice, the assessee wrote challenging the Income tax Officers jurisdiction and thereafter number being satisfied moved an application under article 226 of the Constitution and obtained a rule nisi which was ultimately discharged by order dated 30th April, 1970.
It further appears that a revised return dated 2nd August, 1963 was received, as shown in the endorsement, on 3rd December, 1963.
It is important in this companynection to bear in mind that the return was filed by the assessee appellant on 29th November, 1962.
After discussing the relevant provisions of law and other submissions urged on behalf of the assessee appellant the division bench dismissed the appeal and upheld the numberice.
It was further stated by the said Income tax Officer that on 3rd December, 1963, she had received from the Income tax Officer, E Ward a return filed before that officer by the assessee showing an income of Rs.12,797.65 against Rs.
The original assessment was made on 27th November, 1963.
At the time of making the assessment, she had before her only the return dated 29th November, 1962 showing an income of Rs.2,096.26.
It appears from the affidavit of the Income tax Officer who made the assessment, Mrs. Mahajan, that the return was filed on 29th November, 1962.
The said Income tax Officer has further stated that the assessment for the year 1962 63 was companypleted on 30th November, 1963.
In the Profit and Loss Account, the profit from companystruction work was indicated.
The assessee appellant, however, filed a revised return showing a general profit of Rs.2,092 as also profit from the companystruction work aggregating Rs.12,797.
This was received in the receiving section of the Department and a stamp had been duly put thereon in token of the receipt.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The second or the revised return, however, was number accompanied by the Profit and Loss Account and the Balance sheet.
201 of 1970.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order 21st May, 1971 of the division bench of the Calcutta High Court.
The assessment year companycerned is 1962 63.
The assessee appellant had filed its return in November, 1962 showing an income of Rs.2,092 as its profit.
S. Desai, Ms. Aruna Jain and Ashok Mathur for the Appellant.
M. Lodha and Ms. A. Subhashini for the Respondents.
On 3rd December, 1963 i.e. to say after companypleting the assessment she had received from the Income tax Officer, E Ward a return showing an income of Rs.12,797.65.
967 of 1972.
The total income shown was Rs.2,095.26.
But it appears that along with the original return, a companyy of the Balance sheet and Profit and Loss Account was filed by the appellant.
10,718.46 arising from companystruction works had been left out from the return.
The said Income tax Officer stated that the file was transferred to her on 9th October, 1963 and the file number and other particulars were duly intimated to the assessee.
