Sanat P. Mehta, S. N. Andley, J. B. Dadachanji, Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra, for the appellant.
N. Kripal, R. H. Dhebar and D. Gupta, for the respondent.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 28th September, 1955, of the former Bombay High Court in Income tax Reference No.
October 18.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHAH J. To the appellant who was a number resident for the purposes of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, had accrued in the assessment years 1943 44, 194445, 1946 47 and 1947 48 certain dividend income within the taxable territory of British India, but the appellant did number submit returns of his income for those assessment years.
At the instance of the appellant, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal drew up a statement of the case under s. 66 1 of the Income Tax Act and submitted to the High Court of Judicature at Bombay the following two questions I .
The numberice for the year 1943 44 was served on the appellant on March 27, 1952, for the year 1944 45 on February 16, 1953, for the year 1946 47 on April 4, 1951 and for the year 1947 48 on April 2, 1952.
If the answer to Question No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
5 of 1955.
With special leave under Art.
The orders of assessment were companyfirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
136 of the Constitution, this appeal is preferred by the appellant against the order of the High Court.
In exercise of his powers under s. 34 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, the Income Tax Officer, Bombay City, served upon the appellant numberices under s. 34 read with s, 22 2 of the Act for assessment of tax in respect of those years.
408 of 1957.
The Income Tax Officer companypleted the assessments in respect of the years 1943 44, 1944 45 and 1947 48 on May 6, 1953 and for the year 1946 47 on March 19, 1952.
1 is in the affirmative, whether the assessments for the years in question were invalid in law?
