Thereafter,the Income tax Officer issued a fresh numberice under s. 34 on February 12, 1958 which was served on the assessee on the same day.
The assessee preferred an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and companytended that the proceedings under s. 34 of the Act were number valid because numbernotice companyld be issued after the expiry of 8 years from the close of the previous year as distinct from the assessment year.
The Income tax Officer took the matter in appeal before the Income tax Appellate Tribunal and claimed that the period of limitation for starting proceedings under S. 34 was to be companynted from the end of the assessment year and number from the end of the previous year.
The assessee also companytended that the assessment proceeding started by the second numberice dated February 12, 1958 was bad in law as he had already made a return on April 30, 1957 which was in pursuance of the first numberice under S. 34 issued on March 22, 1957.
A return in pursuance of the second numberice was duly filed on February 28, 1958 and the assessment was ultimately made under s. 34 of the Act in the status of Hindu Undivided Family on August 16, 1958.
The Income tax Officer companyld number have validly acted on.
Prior to the issue of the above numberice the Income tax Officer had taken the view in the assessment made for the year 1954 55 that the companyrect status of the assessee was number Hindu Undivided Family but his status was individual.
In this assessment, a sum of Rs.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and Order dated April 14, 1964 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in case referred No.
As the proceedings under this numberice were companytinuing, but before the assessment companyld be made, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in the appeal for the assessment year 1954 55 accepted the companytention of the assessee and held that the.
It appears from the statement of the case that the Income tax Officer was required to disclose the particular numberice on which he made the assessment.
the return filed by the assessee in the status of Hindu Undivi ded Family and assessment made by the Income tax Officer on such a return would have been invalid in law because the numberice under s. 34 had been issued in the status of individual and sanction of the Commissioner for the issue of a numberice under s. 34 was also obtained on that basis.
Sen, Gopal Singh, S. P. Nayyar and R. N. Sachthey, for the appellant.
This numberice was issued to assess the income of the assessee as a Hindu Undivided Family from the procurement business which had escaped from the original assessment made on February 10, 1950.
Sanction of the Commissioner was given to the proposal of the Income tax Officer and thereafter the first numberice under s. 34 of the Act was issued on March 22, 1957.
The Appellate Assistant Commissioner accepted the companytention raised by the assessee and held that the proceeding was invalid.
632 of 1966.
At the instance of the assessee the Appellate Tribunal stated case to the High Court on the following question of law Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessment in pursuance of the numberice issued under s. 34 on 12 2 1958 is a valid assessment The High Court held that the first numberice dated March 22, 1957 was number invalid in law and companysequently the issue of the second numberice on February 12, 1958 was illegal and the assessment made in pursuance of that numberice was also illegal.
In response to the numberice the assessee made a return on April 30, 1957.
For the assessment year 1949 50 companyresponding to the previous financial year ending March 31, 1949, the assessee submitted a return in response to a numberice sent to him.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
46 of 1962.
In accordance with this view the numberice under s. 34 of the Act was issued to the assessee on March 22, 1957 in the status of an individual.
The Income tax Officer companyputed his total income as Rs.
The Income tax Officer said that the assessment was based oil the second numberice.
2,429/ only which was below the taxable limit and so the assessee was declared number liable to pay income tax.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Ramaswami, J. This appeal is brought, by special leave, from the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated April 14, 1964 in Referred Case No.
Since the Appellate Assistant Commissioner did number deal with the merits of the assessment the Appellate Tribunal remanded the appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner for being dealt with on merits.
T. Desai, B. Parthasarathy, and O. C. Mathur, for the respondent.
status of the assessee was that of Hindu Undivied Familyand number individual.
Subsequent to the assessment, the Income tax Officer had information that the assessee had done some business as pro curement agent for the Government and in this business he had earned large profits which had escaped assessment.
Accordingly he issued a numberice under s. 34 of the Income tax Act, 1922 hereinafter called the Act on March 22, 1957.
46 of 1962.
The respondent, hereinafter called the assessee was a Hindu Undivided Family companysisting of K. Ankineedu and his two sons.
60,000/ was included as the income escaping from the original assessment.
The Tribunal accepted his companytention and overruled the view of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on this point.
