Lalit Kishore Mitra vs Commissioner of Income Tax

James, J.—The petitioner failed to submit a return in accordance with a notice issued under the provisions of Section 22(2), Income Tax Act, and his assessment was made summarily u/s 23(4) of the Act. He applied u/s 27 of the Act stating grounds for his failure to submit his return, but the reasons were not found to be sufficient by the Income Tax Officer and his petition was rejected. An appeal to the Assistant Commissioner was dismissed, whereupon the petitioner applied to the Commissioner to state a case u/s 66(2), Income Tax Act. This application was also rejected.

Mr. Jayaswal on behalf of the petitioner argues in the first place that he has shown sufficient cause for his failure, to submit his return u/s 22(2) of the Act, and in the second place that the summary assessment was arbitrary and therefore illegal.

The reason given for the failure to file the return was that the petitioner''s son, who was entrusted with the responsibility of preparing it, forgot the matter owing to the fact that his father had entrusted him with the arrangements for the marriage of the petitioner''s grand-daughter. The Income Tax Officer and the Assistant Commissioner considered this reason to be inadequate, and it certainly cannot be said, as a point of law, that they were not justified in their view. The summary assessment was larger than the assessment of 1927-1928 which was made on the basis of the petitioner''s returns; but it cannot be said that the assessment was based on no evidence, or that it was so arbitrary in its nature as to be illegal.

The application must accordingly be rejected with costs. Hearing fee two gold mohurs.

Chatterji, J.

I agree.