Law:

Section:

Section 226 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Collection and recovery of tax - Other modes of recovery - Whether essential pre-requisite for a writ of prohibition is complete absence of jurisdiction on part of statutory tribunal whose order is sought to be challenged under Article 226 and it should be found as a fact and beyond doubt that on materials placed before court, no reasonable person will assume that statutory tribunal has ever authority to assume such power and act in manner contemplated - Held, yes - Petitioner along with three others including 'J' carried on business under an oral partnership, in name and style of 'SSPC' - Said 'SSPC' or 'SSMC' doing business at place, which was admittedly localised did not submit their returns - Notice under section 34 of Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 was served on 'J' but there was no response either from partners of firm or partnership firm as such - ITO finalised assessment on best basis - A notice under section 226(3) was issued to petitioner and others for recovery of tax dues - Petitioner claimed that he was not responsible to meet demand as he did not do any business under trade name 'SSMC' which department sought to assess - 'J' was examined long after assessment proceedings were over in presence of petitioner, and petitioner was not able to suggest to 'J' or elicit from him that business at localised place was in any way different from commercial activity in which petitioner, J' and others were involved during assessment year in question at that place - Whether though assessment proceedings followed up by assessment were initiated on unregistered firm which was wrongly described, its identity was maintained by establishing nexus between partners and commercial activity, and petitioner-partner could not escape consequences flowing from order of assessment and recovery proceedings - Held, yes - Whether since everything was based upon genuine information obtained by department to set in motion process under section 34 of 1922 Act, ITO had jurisdiction in law to act and exercise his power in manner he did and, therefore, writ petition had to be dismissed - Held, yes FACTS The petitioner's was admittedly a partner of…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492