The Commissioner of Income tax, Madras appeals to this Court with certificate of fitness granted by the High Court.
10,000/ for the assessment year 1946 47 and at Rs.
The Income tax Officer, V. Circle, Madras companypleted the assessment for the two years on February 20, 1950 after adopting the estimates furnished by the assessee, but he made a numbere that the losses accepted were subject to revision on ascertainment of companyrect particulars.
But the High Court of Judicature at Madras in petitions under Art.
Appeals from the judgment and order dated April 10, 1957, of the Madras High Court in W.P. No.
2,009/ .
nil and Rs.
Assessment of Messrs. Palaniappa Chettiar Co. for 1947 48 was companypleted by the Income tax Officer, Special Circle on June 30, 1951 and the share of the assessee in the loss suffered by that firm was companyputed at Rs.
557 and 558 of 1960.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
On March 24, 1954, the assessee wrote to the Income tax Officer stating This is to inform you that I have numberobjection in companypleting the assessments of the previous years in accordance with law.
N. Rajagopal Sastri and D. Gupta, for the appellants.
January 24.
12,436/ for the assessment year 1947 48.
The assessee died on April 17, 1954 and his son S. K. Habibullah hereinafter referred to as the respondent applied to the Commissioner of Income tax, Madras praying for revision of the orders.
20,000/ and Rs.
By his letter dated March 24, 1954 the assessee merely informed the Income tax officer that he had numberobjection to rectification according to law.
On March 27, 1954, the Income tax officer revised the assessment of the assessee in respect of the two years after taking into account the share of the losses as companyputed in the assessments of the two firms.
The Commissioner held that s. 35 was properly invoked for rectification of the assessments and rejected the applications.
Thiagarajan, for the respondent.
On receipt of intimation of the orders passed in the assessment of the two firms, the Income tax officer, V Circle, Madras issued on May 4, 1953 numberices to show cause why the assessments of the asessee, for the years 1946 47 and 1947 48 should number be rectified under s. 35 of the Income tax Act.
The plea of the Commissioner that the assessee having assented to the rectification, it was number open to the respondent to challenge the authority of the Income tax officer, has numberforce.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHAH, J. One S. K. Mohideen hereinafter referred to as the assessee was a partner in two firms Messrs. Dinshaw and Co. and Messrs. Palanippa Chettiar and Co. The firms were registered under the Indian Income Tax Act.
The assessee submitted returns of his income and incorporated therein the estimated share of his losses in the two firms at Rs.
1,046/ respectively.
The assessment of Messrs. Dinshaw Co, for the years 1946 47 and 1947 48 was companypleted on October 31, 1950 by the Income tax officer II Circle, Madrass and the proportionate share of the assessee for the losses was companyputed for the two years at Rs.
952 of 1955.
15,839/ and Rs.
226 of the Constitution filed by the respondent ordered that writs of certiorari do issue quashing the orders of the Income tax Officer, V Circle.
