OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR BHARATPUR OIL MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition by the official liquidator acting for the Bharatpur Oil Mills (P.) Ltd. (In liquidation) for the issue of a writ of certiorari, prohibition or other appropriate writ, direction or order under Article 226 of the Constitution, by which the petitioner challenges the validity of a notice dated September 27, 1972, issued by the ITO, "A" Ward, Kota, under Section 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961.

(2.) DURING the assessment year 1966-67, the previous year of which corresponded to the year ended on March 31, 1966, the official liquidator effected sales of capital assets of the company in liquidation, i.e., machinery, plants, etc., on August 5/6, 1965, under the order of the High Court for a sum of Rs, 6,35,000. It appears that one-fourth of the auction price was deposited on August 9, 1965, and the company accepted the bid on August 18, 1965. In December, 1965, the official liquidator sold a truck and a tank for Rs. 3,275 and Rs. 1,100, respectively. The ITO, Companies Circle I, Jaipur, having come to know about the transfer of the capital assets of the company, issued a notice dated July 24/25, 1967, under Section 148, with a view to bring to tax in the hands of the assessee the income derived therefrom, requiring the official liquidator to file a return of the said income. In pursuance of the aforesaid notice, the official liquidator filed a return dated October 4, 1967, on October 7, 1967. In the section regarding capital gains, the income was shown as "nil", although along with the return certain documents were filed giving details of the transfers effected by him as per "annexs. I to J ".

(3.) WE refrain from expressing any opinion on merits though the learned counsel addressed us on all the points at great length. Suffice it to say, Shri S.K. Mal Lodha, learned counsel for the revenue, also placed before us the record of the case which shows that the ITO, "A" Ward, Kota, has recorded detailed reasons on September 4, 1972, for initiating proceedings under Section 147(a) and for issuing notice under Section 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The proceedings were started after the Commissioner accorded the requisite sanction under Section 151(2). There is, therefore, no substance in the contention that the conditions prerequisite for the issue of the notice under Section 148 were not there.