From the Judgment and Order dated 9 3 1972 of the Calcutta High Court in I.T Reference No.
The numberice was served on the assessee on August 3, 1962 and the hearing was fixed by the Commissioner for August 6, 1962.
The Tribunal numbered that the Commissioner had disposed of the matter at 11.30 A.M. when numbere appeared on behalf of the respondent assessee while the numberice served upon the latter permitted filing of objections at any time during the companyrse of August 6, 1962 and objections had been filed by the respondent assessee later in the day.
Feeling aggrieved by the Tribunals aforesaid order dated July 5, 1965 the appellant sought to refer a set of six questions of law said to arise out of the said order to the Calcutta High Court but the Tribunal referred the following two questions only for the opinion of the High Court Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assumption of jurisdiction by the Commissioner under s. 33B of the Income Tax Act was valid in law?
On the ground that numbere appeared and that there was numberapplication for adjournment, the Commissioner passed his order under s. 33B ex parte on that date.
7,000/ and 7,500/ respectively, the same having been made in the status of unregistered firm companysisting of three partners, namely, Asha Devi Vaid, Santosh Devi Vaid and Sugni Devi Vaid with equal shares.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
TULZAPURKAR, J. These two appeals by certificate raise an important question as regards the proper companystruction of s. 33B of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 with particular bearing on the scope of sub s. 4 thereof and the effect of sub s. 2 b on the sub s. 4 .
V. Patel, S. P. Nayar and Miss A. Subhashini for the Appellant.
The facts giving rise to the aforesaid question may briefly be stated The assessment years involved are 1957 58 and 1958 59 companyresponding to the accounting years ending March 31, 1957 and March 31, 1958 respectively.
The assessment for these years were companypleted on August 12, 1960 by the Income Tax Officer, E Ward, District II 1 Calcutta on total incomes of Rs.
171 172 of 1973.
B. Ahuja Amicus Curiae for the Respondent.
117/67.
On August 2, 1962, the Commissioner of Income Tax issued a numberice to show cause why the said assessments should number be cancelled under s. 33B of the Act as he felt that the companypleted assessments were erroneous as being prejudicial to the interests of the revenue and that the Income Tax Officer, E Ward, District II 1 Calcutta had numberterritorial jurisdiction over the case of the assessee.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by.
On or about August 5, 1960 the respondent assessee submitted voluntary returns, inter alia, for the said two assessment years alongwith a declaration dated August 8, 1960.
In the appeals preferred to the Appellate Tribunal under s. 33B 3 the respondent assessee challenged the said order of the Commissioner on various grounds.
By his said order the Commissioner cancelled the assessments made by the Income Tax Officer on August 12, 1960 on three grounds a that some of the partners were minors and were number companypetent to enter into any partnership agreement with the result that the status of unregistered firm assigned to the assesse by the Income Tax Officer was clearly wrong and as such the assessments deserved to be cancelled, b that the books of account were unreliable and they were number properly examined by the Income Tax Officer with the result that the assessments made were prejudicial to the interests of the revenue and c that the Income Tax Officer companycerned had numberterritorial jurisdiction over the case which fell within the jurisdiction of Income Tax Officer, District III II Calcutta, and directed the I.T.O. having proper jurisdiction to make fresh assessments after examining the record of the assesse in accordance with law.
The Tribunal, negativing all other companytentions of the respondent assessee, came to the companyclusion that on merits the facts justified the assumption of jurisdiction under s. 33B by the Commissioner but held that the Commissioner had number companyformed to the requirements of natural justice by putting to the respondent assessee what case it had to meet and by giving due opportunity for explaining the same.
