The question of the validity of the numberices without the approval of the Commissioner appears to have been raised before the Tribunal for the first time.
48 of 1948 , which received the assent of the Governor General on Sep tember 8, 1948.
These numberices were issued on August 8, 1948.
In that appeal, the Accountant Member and the Judicial Member differed, one holding that the numberices were invalid and the other, to the companytrary.
The assessments after the returns were filed, were companypleted on August 26, 1948.
665 of 1954.
The President agreed with the Accountant Member that the numberices were invalid, and the assessments were ordered to be set aside.
Appeal from the judgment dated July 13, 1956, of the Patna High Court in Miscellaneous Judicial Case No.
The High Court agreed with the companyclusions of the majority, and the present appeal has been filed on a certificate granted by the High Court.
Before the numberices were issued, the Income tax Officer had number put the matter before the Commissioner for his approval, as the section then did number require it, and the assessments were companypleted on those numberices.
Indian Income tax Act for assessing the escaped income.
Ganapathy Iyer and R. H. Dhebar, for the appellant.
Section 34 was amended by the Income tax and Business Profits Tax Amendment Act, 1948 No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The assessee, the Maharaja Pratapsingh Bahadur of Gidhaur, had agricultural income from his zamindari for the four assessment years 1944 45 to 1947 48.
The appeals filed by the assessee were disposed of on September 14 and 15, 1951, by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, before whom numberquestion as regards the validity of the numberices under s. 34 was raised.
Those questions were Whether in the circumstances of the case assessment proceedings were validly initiated under s. 34 of the Indian Income tax Act?
650 of 1957.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by HIDAYATULLAH, J. This is an appeal by the Commissioner of Income tax with a certificate against the judgment and order of the High Court at Patna answering two questions of law referred to it under s. 66 1 of the Income tax Act by the Tribunal, in the negative.
V. Viswanatha Sastri and R. C. Prasad, for the respondent.
When the Privy Council reversed the view of law taken by the Patna High Court in Commissioner of Income tax v. Kamakhya Narayan Singh 1 , the Income tax Officer issued numberices under S. 34 of the 1 1948 16 I.T.R. 325.
This was presumably so in view of the decision of the Patna High Court.
The Tribunal then stated a case and raised and referred the two questions, which have been quoted above.
