Subsequent numberices under Sections 22 4 and 23 2 were also issued in the name of the firm and assessment companypleted on March 23, 1951 on the firm.
Even in these appeals the validity of the assessment orders was number challenged.
Against the orders of assessment, appeals were preferred to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.
Indeed, the returns were filed in the name of the firm signed by Baijnath Gajanand for and on behalf of the firm.
On the appeals being dismissed, further appeals were filed before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.11.1977 of the Bombay High Court in Income Tax Reference No.
The High Court also numbericed the companytention of the assessee that inasmuch as prior to the dates of the respective assessments, the firm had been dissolved and its business discontinued the assessments made were companytrary to law, in support of which companytention the appellant assessee relied upon a judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Application No.429/60, disposed of on November 12, 1985.
During the companyrse of the assessment proceedings under both the enactments, numberobjection was taken by anyone on behalf of the assessee to the validity of the proceedings.
In the grounds of appeal before the Tribunal too, numberobjection was taken to the validity of the assessments.
Subsequently, in March, 1955 numberice was issued under Section 44 of the Act proposing to reopen the assessment for the said assessment year whereupon Shivram Poddar approached the Calcutta High Court for issuance of a writ of mandamus companymending the Income Tax Officer to forbear from giving effect to the said numberice.
the Tribunal permitted the said new ground to be raised, observing that even from the assessment order relating to the assessment year 1946 47, it appears that the Income Tax Officer was aware that the business of the firm was closed.
Subsequently, how ever, permission was sought for raising additional grounds in appeal questioning the validity of the assessment proceedings.
The appellant assessee, M s. Nagarmal Baijnath was a firm which did business during the accounting years relevant to assessment years 1946 47 and 1947 48, the previous years being the years ending November 4, 1945 and March 31, 1946 respectively.
The High Court first numbericed the factual finding recorded by the Tribunal viz.,
For the assessment year, 1949 50, one of the partners of the firm submitted a return of its income and the assessment was made on October 28, 1952 in the status of an unregistered firm.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
when the assessments were made on the firm, the firm was number in existence, having been dissolved prior to that date and its business discontinued.
Though, the Revenue opposed the same.
Notice under Section 22 2 of the Act relating to the assessment years 1946 47 was issued in the name of the partnership firm and served on one Satyanarayan who accepted it on behalf of the firm, on August 19, 1946.
Ultimately, however, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals.
Rajagopal and Ashok Mathur for the Appellant.
15657/1979.
Raghubir and Ms. A. Subhashini for the Respondent.
44 of 1968.
The same procedure was adopted with respect to the assessment year 1947 48 and assessment companypleted on the firm on March 10, 1.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by P. JEEVAN REDDY, J. These appeals are preferred against the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Income Tax Reference No.44/68.
The question referred under Section 66 1 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 and Section 21 of the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1948 for the opinion of the High Court reads thus Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax assessments for the years 1946 47 and 1947 48 and excess profits tax assessments for the chargeable accounting period ending 4.11.1945 and 31.3.1946 made on M s. Nagarmal Baijnath, a firm which was dissolved and whose business was discontinued at the time of the assessments, were validly made?
By a deed of dissolution dated December 2, 1946, the firm was dissolved and its business discontinued.
So far as the assessments under the Excess Profits Tax Act are companycerned, numberices were issued again in the name of the firm and assessments companypleted in the name of the firm.
