The Income tax Officer only companyplied with the request.
He rejected the assessees objection regarding jurisdiction with these words By its letter dated 27th September, 1956, the assessee companytended that under Section 64 1 of the Indian Income tax Act, the place of assessment should be where the assessee carried on business, profession or vocation and that as the principal place of the business was at Jaipur, the place of assessment should have been at Jaipur.
The companytention of the assessee regarding jurisdiction is, therefore, rejected.
When those returns were pending before the I. T. O., Ajmer, the I.T.O., Central Circle IV, issued fresh numberices to the assessee under Section 34 calling upon it to submit its income tax returns in respect of those very assessment years.
I. T. O. Ajmer.
A. C., Delhi.
The Income tax Officer, Ajmer issued numberices under Section 34 of the Indian Income tax Act, 1922 to be hereinafter referred to as the Act to the assessee calling upon it to submit its income tax returns in respect of the assessment years mentioned earlier.
The Tribunal accepted that companytention.
At the relevant time the headquarters of the assessee companypany was at Jaipur.
I. T., Delhi.
The assessee did number submit any return.
A, C., Delhi.
In these appeals we are companycerned with the assessment of the assessee for the assessment years 1946 47, 1947 48 and 1949 50.
The circum stance under which the I. T. O., Central Circle came to issue numberices under Section 34 is set out in the Order of the A. A. C. The A. A. Cs Order indicates that in respect of Jaipur which was formerly a native State, there have been some changes as regards the Income tax setup.
The assessee went up in appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner against the assessments made by the I. T. O., Central Circle.
Possibly for some time after Jaipurs integration with India, Jaipur was under the jurisdiction of the I. T. O., Ajmer.
The assessee also relied upon the decision of the Bidi Supply Co. v. Union of India, in support of its companytention.
The assessee company was incorporated in the erstwhile State of Jaipur on March 10, 1943, under the Jaipur Companies Act.
This objection of the assessee regarding the jurisdiction was duly referred to the Commissioner of Income tax, Delhi, who, vide his letter dated 30th January, 1957, addressed to the assessee companypany, informed that the case of assessee has been transferred to the Income tax Officer, Central Circle IV, under Section 5 7 A of the Indian Income tax Act, and that in view of the facility of investigation and proper assessment it was number possible to accede to the request of the companypany for transfer of the case back to the territorial Income tax Officer.
Moreover, the case of Pannalal Brijraj v. Union of India, has already decided the issue regarding the vires of Section 5 7 A .
In response to those numberices the assessee submitted its returns on August 11, 1953.
Thereafter, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income tax, the following question was submitted by the Tribunal to the High Court in respect of the assessment year 1946 47 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case a fresh action under Section 34 1 A companyld be initiated on 21 2 1955 and an assessment made thereon on 24 3 1956 when a return dated 11 8 1953 was already pending before the Income tax Officer?
On receipt of this numberice, the companypany in the letter dated 2 4 1955 informed the Income tax Officer that a return has already been filed for that year and requested him to treat the said return as one submitted in companypliance with the numberice under Section 34 1 A .
Thereafter the Income tax Officer, Central IV, Delhi issued numberice under Section 34 1 A after obtaining the prior approval of the Central Board of Revenue.
The Income tax Officer Central Circle, companyplied with that request.
They arise from a companymon Judgment of the Rajasthan High Court.
S. Hegde, J. These are appeals by special leave.
Consequently the Tribunal held that the numberices issued by I. T. O., Central Circle, were invalid numberices.
On the other hand it wrote a letter to the I.T.O., Central Circle IV, saying that it had already submitted its returns to the I.T.O., Ajmer and hence it companyld number be called upon to submit fresh returns.
Ignoring the objection of the assessee the I.T.O., Central Circle, assessed the assessee.
