Before doing so, he issued a numberice to the firm on July 18, 1962 which reads thus From Shri F. H. Vallibhoy Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal.
1960 and 25th February, 1961 for the assessment year, 1959 60 and 1960 61 respectively in the above case and the companynected records, I companysider that the said orders are erroneous and prejudicial to revenue, inasmuch as registration u s 26A of Income Tax Act 1922, for the assessment year 1959 60 and renewal of registration u s 26A of the said Act for the assessment year 1960 61 should number have been granted as there are prima facie reasons and grounds to hold that the partnership brought into existence by the partnership deed dated 2nd January, 1958 is number a genuine one.
Gentlemen, SUB.
F. H. Vallibhoy, Commissioner of Income Tax West Bengal.
Yours faithfully, Sd.
Appeals by certificate special leave from the judgments and orders dated May 2, 1968 of the Calcutta High Court in Incometax Reference Nos.
I am prepared to hear your objections, if any, at 11 A.M. on 3rd August, 1962 at my office as numbered above.
Jagadish Swarup, Solicitor General, A. N. Kirpal, R. N. Sachthey and B. D. Sharma, for the appellant in all the appeals .
On January 2, 1958 he purported to enter into a partnership with his mother in law and son in law.
Objections in writing, if any submitted on or before the above date will also be duly companysidered.
63, 112 and 113 of 1965.
The Income tax Officer accorded registration of the partnership in question under section 26 A of the Act for the two assessment years with which we are companycerned in these appeals.
He therefore proceeded against the assessee under section 33B of the Act.
T. Desai and D. N. Mukherjee, for the respondent in all the appeals .
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
2376 to 2379 of 1968 and 1168 to 1471 of 1971.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hegde, J. Civil Appeals Nos.
The Commissioner of Income tax, West Bengal, however appears to have found on an examination of the records that the orders .of the Income tax Officer granting registration to the assessee firm for the assessment year 1959 60 and renewal of registration for the assessment year 1960 61 were erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.
To M s. Electro House T. Road, Asansol.
The ,concerned assessment years are 1959 60 and 1960 61, the companyresponding accounting years having ended on December 31 of each of the years 1958 and 1959.
2376 2379 of 68 are by certificate.
The facts of the case lie within a narrow companypass.
1168 1171 of 71 are by special leave and Civil Appeals Nos.
Under that partnership he had 40 share and his mother in law and son in law had 30 share each in the profits and losses of the firm.
The business of that firm was started by Baidyanath Gorai sometimes in the year 1949 and up to the assessment year 1958 59 he was assessed as the sole proprietor thereof.
The question referred under section 66 i is Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the numberice issued under, section 33B of the Indian Income tax Act, 1922 met the requirements of the law and whether the Commissioner of Income tax validly exercised jurisdiction under section 33B of the Indian Income tax Act, 1922 ?
The assessee M s. Electro House claimed to be a firm companystituted under a deed of partnership dated January 2, 1958.
These appeals arise from the decision of the Calcutta High Court in certain tax references.
Income Tax, Assessment 1959 60 and 1960 61 M s. Etectro House Registration u s 26A of the Income Tax Act Wrongly granted Proposal u s 33B to cancel orders u s 26A notice regarding On a perusal of the orders u s 26A passed by Income Tax Officer, A Ward Asansol on 5th October.
