During the relevant assessment year 1965 66 both the properties were occupied by the respondent.
The High Court by its Judgment dated June 23, 1970 in Special Civil Application No.
Not satisfied with the explanation the Income tax Officer issued a numberice dated September 12, 1969, to the respondent under Section 148 stating that whereas he had reason to believe that the income of the respondent chargeable to tax for the assessment year 1965 66 had escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147, he proposed to re assess the income for the said assessment year and required the respondent to file a return of his income within 30 days from the date of receipt of the numberice.
The respondent then filed a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ in the nature of mandamus for quashing the numberice dated September 12, 1969 issued by the Income tax Officer.
1372 of 1969 allowed the application and issued the writ of mandamus quashing the numberice dated September 12, 1969.
A Bench of the Delhi High Court relying on the reasoning of this Court in 72 I.T.R. 376 that the opinion expressed by the Central Board of Revenue in appeal under the Estate Duty Act would be information held that the numbere of the revenue audit under the Comptroller and Auditor General of India would be infor mation.
The order of assessment was made by the Income tax Officer on March 14, 1966.
The respondent on July, 13, 1969 replied that the Income tax Officer was number companypetent to reopen the assessment under Section 147 and that the municipal taxes were validly allowed as a deduction in companyputing the income from self occupied properties.
4,052 being the municipal taxes be deducted in determining the annual valuation of the properties under Section 23 2 of the Income tax Act.
In Vushist Bhargava v. Income tax Officer, Salary Circle, New Delhi 99 I.T.R. 148.,
On an application filed by the appellant the High Court granted a certificate and the appeal is thus before us.
Mathew J. speaking for the companyrt held that the numbere put up by the Audit to the effect that the assessment ought to have been made on the reconstituted firm for the entire income of the two periods and therefore the Income tax Officer companymitted an error, was instruction or knowledge derived from an external source and would companystitute information.
by the Kerala High Court.
The respondent claimed that a sum of Rs.
Subsequently after a lapse of over 3 years the Income tax Officer by a letter dated July 15, 1969 called upon the respondent assessee to show cause why the amount of municipal taxes allowed as deduction should number be added back on the ground that it was wrongly allowed.
The same view was expressed in Commissioner of Income tax v. Kelukuttyi85 I.T.R. 102.
The Income tax Officer treated the properties as self occupied properties.
The Income tax Officer allowed the claim.
The respondent who is a Hindu undivided family is an assessee owning two house properties one in Ahmedabad and the other in Bombay.
S. Kailasam, J. This appeal is by the Income tax Officer, Group Circle 11 1 , Ahmedabad, by certificate granted under Article 133 1 c by the High Court of Gujarat against its Judgment June 23, 1970, allowing the application filed by the respondent assessee and issuing a writ of mandamus quashing and setting aside the numberice dated September 12, 1969, issued by the Income tax Officer under Section 148 of the Income tax Act.
