Judgment:
N.N. Mathur, J.
The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition in limine against the show-cause notice relegating the appellant to the statutory remedy.
2. A notice was issued to the appellant assessee-company for the assessment years 1995-96, 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1999-2000 to reassess the escaped income on account of wrong claim of deduction under section 80HH of the Income Tax Act. The appellant has challenged the assessment only with respect to the assessment year 1995-96. The learned Single Judge rejected the writ petition on the ground that the appellant has already filed a reply to the show-cause notice and may satisfy the competent authority that he is entitled for the benefit of section 80HH and 80-I of the Act.
3. Mr. Bhandawat learned counsel appearing for the department submits that the appellant had submitted reply to the show-cause notice against all the four assessment years for which the notices have been issued. The appellant has also preferred an appeal against the order of the assessing authority. It is, however, submitted by Mr. Dinesh Mehta learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is still entitled to challenge the notice as the same is ex facie wholly without jurisdiction. He has read before us the provisions of section 147 of the Income Tax Act. He has particularly invited our attention to the proviso added to the Act. It prohibits any action after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. There is further provision to the said proviso to the effect that.
'Unless any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for such assessment year by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee to make a return under section 139 or in response to a notice issued under sub-section (1) of section 142 or section 148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, for that assessment year.'
The assessee is required to satisfy the authority if he is entitled t benefit of section 80HH. It involves disputed question of fact as whether the manufacturing unit was in the backward area or not? This aspect can only be examined by the Appropriate Authority under the Statute. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge.
4. The special appeal is rejected.