The appellant was assessed in the status of Hindu joint family for the years 1949 50 and 1950 51.
substituted his estimate which though was the same was numberetheless a fresh order.
In the companyrse of the assessment proceedings for 1950 51 at was represented to the Income tax Officer that the petitioner had an eight annas share in the firm of M s. Sriram Harichandradas at Bombay.
The Income tax Officer therefore while companypleting the assessment for the said year on October 30, 1953.
As a companysequence on January 29, 1963.
as companytended by the learned advocate, made on August 31.
but it appears that the assessee did number companyoperate with the Income tax Officer, who after giving him several opportunities ultimately fixed January 16, 1963 as the final date for production of books.
1955 but the one made by the Income tax Officer on January 29, 1963.
he passed a final order estimating the total, income of the firm of M s. Sri ram Harichandradas at Rs.
The Commissioner held that as the petitioner had filed his application for reconsideration under Section 27 out of time which application had been rejected by the Income tax Officer, he companyld number interfere with that order.
Bombay, was subsequently companypleted on November 30.
On that date the assessee did number appear at all.
held, that the Income tax Officer had number adopted a proper basis as he had numberinformation regarding the scope of the business done during the year and that it was also possible that the estimate made by him was excessive.
In pursuance of that order the Income tax Officer had by his order dated January 29, 1963.
13 lakhs as his share of the income derived from the firm.
26 lakhs.
Thereafter the Income tax Officer pursuant to the orders of the Commissioner, called upon the assessee to produce his account books.
The final order, therefore, is number the one.
The Income tax Officer thereafter passed the rectification order under Section 35 5 of the Act on March 16, 1965 against the appellant by including an income of Rs.
26 lakhs.
In this view the four years period which is prescribed under Section 35 5 of the Act is to be companyputed from the final order made by the Income tax Officer on January 29, 1963.
Against that assessment a revision was filed by the firm before the Commissioner under Section 33 A 2 .
That assessment.
The validity of this order was challenged in the writ petition in which it was companytended that the assessment under Section 35 5 of the Act was barred inasmuch as the rectification was made after four years from the date of the final order under Section 33 A 2 .
it appears, was based on best judgment estimate under Section 23 4 of the Act and the firm charged on an income of Rs.
The assessment of the firm of M s. Sriram Harichandradas.
Jaganmohan Reddy, J. This Is an appeal by certificate against the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court refusing to interfere with the order of the Income tax Officer made under Section 35 5 of the Indian Income tax Act.
