Following up this claim the returns in response to the numberice under Section 22 2 of the Income tax Act, 1922 hereinafter called the Act issued to the family for the assessment years 1950 51, 1951 52 and 1952 53 were made by Karuppan Chettiar in Jus individual capacity showing the income from the several sources that fell to his share.
In the companyrse of assessment proceedings for 1949 50 the family claimed on February 7, 1951 that the several businesses of the family had been partitioned between Karuppan Chettiar on the one hand and Muthukaruppan Chettiar and his sons forming a separate family on the other.
The Income tax Officer rejected the claim of partition and assessed the Hindu undivided family for the aforesaid three years treating Karuppan Chettiars returns as the proper returns for the family.
When in respect of any year a return has been voluntarily submitted before assessment, the Income tax Officer cannot ignore the return and the numberice of reassessment and companysequent assessment under Section 34 ignoring the return are invalid.
In response to the numberice the assessee submitted its returns on April 9, 1957 for the three assessment years under protest.
These returns were submitted by the assessee in response to the numberice issued on March 2 1957.
On the basis of these returns the Income tax Officer assessed the assessee by his order of the same date for all the three years, ignoring the protest.
It was held by this Court in Commissioner of Income tax v. Ranchhoddas Karsondas that the return in answer to the general numberice under Section 22 1 of the Act can, under Section 22 3 , be filed at any time before assessment and for this there is numberlimit of time.
The assessee appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner but the appeal was dismissed.
also cancelled the assessments of the family for the aforesaid years.
The assessee took the matter in appeal to the Appellate Tribunal but was unsuccessful.
In keeping with this order he.
