1, the Income tax Officer, Ward D, Jamnagar, as well as the respondent No.
It appears that respondent No.
The appellant thereupon made a return showing an income of Rs.
1 came to known that for the assessment year 1949 50, a large amount of income received by the appellant had escaped assessment.
Before making this order of assessment, numberice has been issued against the appellant on 20th December, 1957, under section 46 1 a of Saurashtra Income tax Ordinance, 1949.
This petition was dismissed by the High Court in limine without issuing numberice to the respondents.
4,74,046.
He also prayed that the assessment order passed against him by the Income tax Officer on the 17th December, 1958, should likewise be quashed.
From the petition for special leave, it would appear that at the time of admission, the appellant presumably urged before this companyrt that the Saurashtra Income tax Ordinance under which the present proceedings had been companymenced against him was invalid.
Against the dismissal of his petition, the appellant applied for and obtained special leave from this companyrt and it was with this special leave thus granted to him that the appeal has companye before us for final disposal today.
Having heard Mr. Pathak on behalf of the appellant, we have companye to the companyclusion that there is numbersubstance in this appeal and it must be dismissed with the companyts.
1 against him on the 14th April, 1960, and the 7th July, 1960.
1 and give his evidence.
1 and that some of the evidence which was given by his witness was also number properly recorded.
46 for the year in question.
It appears that he also preferred an appeal from the remand order to the Income tax Appellate Tribunal.
1 lakh each had been credited in the names of M s. Bhagirath Madangopal Co., Bombay, and Mulji Manilal Kamdar respectively.
Instead of companyplying with the requisition companytained in the said letters, the appellant moved the Gujarat High Court of the 9th July, 1960, by his present writ petition.
2, the Union of India, quashing two numberices issued by the respondent No.
The latter amount was subsequently transferred to the account of another firm of M s. Bhagirath Kasat Co. On the 7th March, 1949, another sum of Rs.
Respondent No.
1 and directed him to submit a report after examining the witness whom the appellant wanted to cite.
1 had companye to know that several amounts had been credited in the account books of the appellant and appeared to represent his income.
In any event, that is one of the grounds taken in the petition for special leave.
Even while making this order of remand, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner companymented on the fact that the appellant appeared to be determined to adopt dilatory proceedings and delay as much as he can the final disposal of the proceedings taken against him.
After the matter was thus remanded to respondent No.
1,80,000 was transferred to the said companypany.
Before the appellate authority, the appellate companytended that all his witness were number allowed to be examined by respondent No.
1, the appellant was required by two letters dated 13th April, 1960, and 7th July, 1960, to appear before respondent No.
74,000 and Rs.
The appellant is the resident of Jamnagar and the order of the assessment was passed against him on 17th December, 1958, assessing him to pay income tax on Rs.
On the 24th October, 1948, for instance two sums of Rs.
The appellate authority partly accepted his companytention and by its order passed on the 3rd September, 1959, it remanded the proceedings to respondent No.
Respondent No.
Against this order of assessment, the appellant preferred an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income tax, Rajkot.
That is why numberice was issued against him calling upon him to make a return of his income for the relevant year.
This section companyresponds to section 34 1 a of Indian Income tax Act.
The High Court summarily rejected the writ petition filed by the appellant, and it is against this summary dismissal that the appellant had companye to this companyrt.
1 was number satisfied with the explanation given by the appellant, and so he passed the order of assessment as indicated above.
In fact, this appeal illustrates how an assessee can prolong the assessment proceedings by adopting judicial proceedings available to him under the law and thereby postpone indefinitely the final disposal of the said proceedings by the income tax authorities.
Further credits to the tune of Rs.
In submitting his return, the appellant attempted to say that these amounts did number represent his income at all and showed benami transactions entered into by him on behalf of other persons.
20,000 were also discovered.
Gajendragadkar, C.J. This appeal by special leave arises out of a writ petition filed by the appellant, Lalji Haridas, in the High Court of Gujarat under article 226 of the Constitution in which he prayed for a writ including a writ in the nature of certiorari against respondent No.
