This appeal be assessee is directed against order of AAC sustaining fine of Rs. 500 imposed on assessee by ITO under s. 131(2) of IT Act, 1961. assessee, Shri R.C. Oswal, is Director of M/s Divakar Investment and Trading co. Pvt. Ld., Ludhiana. ITO issued notice under s. 139(2) to above assessee asking it to file return of its total income. In connection with above proceedings, summons under s. 131 of Act was issued on 29th Oct., 1982 to Shri R.C. Oswal asking him to produce following information on 30th Oct., 1982: (I) Name and designation of Officer with whom company M/s Divakar Investment and Trading Co. (P) Ltd. is being assessed at Bombay. (ii) Photostat copy of receipt having filed return for asst. yr. 1982-83. (iii) Copy of incorporation certificate of M/s Divakar Investment & Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana. In response to summons under s. 131, Shri R.C. Oswal appeared before ITO. He, however, did not produce above information before ITO. He also raised certain legal issues about jurisdiction of ITO. above compliance was required to be made on 30th Oct., 1982. ITO had also recorded his statement which Shri R.C. Oswal had refused to sign on ground that copy of statement should be supplied to him before it was signed by him. According to ITO, he was asked to wait for half hour so that statement may be got typed and could be supplied to him. It is not mentioned in order of ITO as to whether Shri R.C. Oswal waited for half hour but it has been mentioned that statement was not signed till 11th Nov., 1982, date when order was passed by ITO. Ultimately, ITO for non- compliance of summons, imposed fine of Rs. 500 on Sh. R.C. Oswal, Director of above company. order imposing fine has been upheld by AAC. Shri D.K. Gupta, ld. counsel of assessee at outset pointed out that proceedings for imposing fine under s. 131(2) were criminal in nature and before imposing fine, ITO should have afforded opportunity to assessee which she has failed to give. He, therefore, urged that order of ITO was liable to be annulled on this account alone. He further urged that notice under s. 13 was defective in as much as she had asked for certain information to be produced while under s. 131 only documents and books of account could be asked to be produced. He particularly referred to first requirement i.e, name and designation of officer with whom company was assessed at Bombay. He pointed out that this was not document to be produced. Rather it was statement to be made. It was, therefore, beyond scope of documents to be produced. For other items at Nos. (ii) and (iii) above, he urged that assessee had challenged jurisdiction of ITO and if she was not satisfied about legal claim, opportunity should have been given to assessee to explain his conduct for not producing above documents. He further urged that assessee was under bona fide belief that he was not obliged to produced those documents in absence of proper jurisdiction and, therefore, no fine could be imposed even on this account. Lastly, he contended that ITO has referred to refusal of assessee to sign statement recorded by her. He urged that imposition of fine under s. 131(2) was not remedy for such default on part of assessee, though assessee had also case for not signing statement till copy thereof was supplied to him. He, therefore, urged that orders of authorities below were liable to be cancelled. ld. departmental representative, on other hand, vehemently supported orders of authorities below and contended that jurisdiction had rightly been assumed by ITO and for non-compliance of terms of summons, fine was rightly imposed. We have carefully considered rival submissions. We are in complete agreement with submissions made by ld. Counsel for assessee. Firstly ITO was not justified in imposing fine without affording opportunity to assessee. This is against principles of natural justice more so when fine is imposed in proceedings of criminal nature. We also agree that first requirement of notice was beyond purview of s. 131. It is not that first requirement of notice was beyond purview of s. 131. It is not document to be produced by assessee. On contrary it is information which is sought from assessee. assessee had appeared before ITO and ITO could record statement on this point for knowing about above facts. Secondly, for other two requirements of notice assessee could be under bona fide belief that terms thereof could not be complied with for want of proper jurisdiction. We also agree with Shri Gupta that remedy for default committed by assessee in refusing to sign statement does not lie under s. 131(2). ITO has such exceeded his jurisdiction under s. 131(2). In view of above discussions we are unable to sustain orders of authorities below. They are annulled. In result, appeal is allowed. *** R.C. OSWAL v. INCOME TAX OFFICER