Thereafter, the second respondent had numbercompetence to issue the impugned numberices.
Those numberices were again cancelled as per the orders of that very officer dated February 1, 1955, and February 7, 1955.
In its return the appellant took the stand which it had taken earlier.
three assessment years 1946 47 and 1947 48.
Thereafter, the Income tax Officer, Bombay did number issue any fresh numberice to the appellant under Section 34.
In pursuance of those numberices, the appellant filed its returns of income for the assessment years in question on March 8, 1952.
By this letter dated November 25, 1955, the Additional Income tax Officer, Section 1 Central Bombay to be hereinafter referred to as the Income tax Officer, Bombay intimated to the appellant about the transfer of its case to him by the Central Board of Revenue.
Item No.78A of that numberification provides thus Companies, number assessed through statutory agents under section 43, the companytrol and management of whose affairs was, during any previous years falling wholly or partly within the period beginning on the 1st day of September, 1939 and ending on the 31st day of March, 1946, number directed wholly from any area situated wholly in the taxable territories as defined in sub clauses a , b and c of clause 14A of section 2, in respect of assessment or re assessment for any period prior to the 1st April, 1949 shall be assessed by the Income tax Officer, Central Circle Iv, Delhi.
The appellant who was the petitioner therein prayed that the Court may be pleased to quash the numberices issued by the second respondent on November 30th, 1962, under section 148 of the Indian Income tax Act, 1961, pertaining to its assessment for assessment years 1946 47 and 1947 48 on the ground that he had numbercompetence to issue those numberices.
The learned judge who tried the case accepted the companytention of the appellant that the second respondent had numbercompetence to issue the impugned numberices but at the same time, he thought that the reliefs prayed for cannot be granted as he was of the opinion that the dispute was as regards the place of assessment which according to him has to be dealt with at the administrative level.
Accordingly the appellant appeared before that officer.
On February 1, 1952, the Income tax Officer, Satara South, Sangli, issued two numberices to the appellant under section 34 of the Act relating to the assessment years 1946 47 and 1947 48.
Very soon after, the said officer issued another set of numberices in respect of assessment years 1946 47 and 1947 48 under section 34 of the Act.
By the Taxation Laws Extension of Merged States and Amendment Act 1949 the Indian Income tax Act, 1922, to be hereinafter referred to as the Act, along with other statutes was extended to the merged States including the State of Miraj Jr .
For the assessment year 1946 47.,
The appellant took up the matter in appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income tax who, by his order dated February 13, 1961 set aside the order of the Income tax Officer, Bombay, on the sole ground that the Income tax officer, Bombay, companyld number act on the basis of those numberices.
The relevant item therein is Item No 78A. The numberification in question had been issued under sub section 6 of section 5.
In the writ petition, Grover, J. came to the companyclusion that in view of the order of the central Board of Revenue dated November 15,1955, under sub section 7A of section 5, transferring the petitioners case to the Income tax Officer, Section 1 Central Bombay, the second respondent was incompetent to initiate assessment proceedings against the appellant.
Therein it showed that numberincome had accrued or arisen or been received by it in the then British India during those assessment years.
But the second respondent Income Tax Officer, Central Circle Iv, New Delhi issued numberices to the appellant under Section 148 of the 1961 Act on November 30, 1962 which is equivalent to section 34 1 of the Act relating to those very years, viz.,
Hence the impugned numberi ces are invalid.
the Income tax Officer determined the total income of the appellant in the taxable territories at R.12,23,988/ and for the assessment year 1947 48 at Rs.13,40,500/ .
This he purported to do in pursuance of the central Board of revenues Notification No.
After some enquiry the Income tax Officer, Satara South, Sangli, cancelled the numberices were issued by the Income tax Officer, B Ward, Sangli, on December 11, 1954, under section 34 of the Sangli Income tax Act relating to the very assessment years mentioned earlier.
44 I.T. dated July 1, 1962, as amended by Notification No.
During the pendency of the proceedings arising from those numberices, the Central Board of Revenue transferred the appellants case from the Income Tax Officer, B Ward, Sangli to the Income tax Officer, Section 1 Central Bombay, as per its order under sub section 7A of section 5 of the Act, dated November 15, 1955.
857 D of 1962 on the file of the Delhi Circuit Bench of the Punjab High Court.
The facts material for the purpose of deciding the companytentions arising in this appeal are these Madhavanagar Cotton Mills Ltd. the appellant herein, was registered as a Private limited companypany in the erstwhile Miraj Jr State on March 25, 1944.
It manufactures textile goods.
Thereafter by his orders dated February 24, 1956 and March 22, 1956, he companypleted the assessments for the two years in question.
Aggrieved by that decision, the appellant has companye up with this appeal.
9 dated January 24, 1955.
As mentioned earlier, the appellant challenges the validity of the numberices issued by the second respondent on the ground that he had numbercompetence to issue those numberices.
