Case Details

Citation(s)
1979 SLG 1287 1979 SLD 1287 (1979) 120 ITR 641
Rajasthan High Court
D.B. CIVIL IT CASE No. 74 OF 1973, SEPTEMBER 18, 1978
DWARKA PRASAD AND K.S. SIDHU, JJ
S.M. Mehta for the Applicant. L.R. Mehta for the
Respondent

Bijoy & Company

v.

Commissioner of IncomE tax

Law:

Section:

Section 148, read with section 256 of Income-tax Act, 1961 - Income escaping assessment - Issue of notice for - Assessment year 1951-52 - Notices under section 147/148 were issued three days before expiry of prescribed limit through Inspector of Department and also by registered post but were not personally served on partners - ITO, however, treating service as sufficient completed reassessment exparte - AAC held that service of notice having not been properly effected, reassessment proceedings were vitiated - Tribunal remanded matter to ITO for recording some more evidence in respect of question as to whether service was properly effected upon partners of assessee-firm, within time prescribed under law, in respect of reassessment proceedings - Whether since Tribunal had not given any definite finding in matter, it was right in holding that at premature stage of passing an order of remand, no referable question of law arose out of its order -Held, yes FACTS The assessment which was sought to be reopened related to the assessment year 1951-52 and the period of 16 years was to expire on 31-3-1968. The ITO issued notices for reassessment under section 147/148 on 28-3-1968, the said notices were sent through inspector as well as registered post but they could not be served on the partners. However, the ITO treated the service as sufficient and completed the reassessment exparte. On appeal, The AAC held that in absence of proper service on the partners, the reassessment proceedings were vitiated. On second appeal, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the ITO for recording some more evidence in respect of question as to whether the service was properly effected upon the partners of the assessee-firm within the time prescribed under law, in respect of the reassessment proceedings. It also rejected application for reference under section 256(1) on the ground that in view of the order of remand, a reference on that stage was premature. On application under section 256(2): HELD The Tribunal did not give any definite finding in the matter. If the Tribunal would have held that the reassessment proceedings were properly initiated, then it would not have proceeded to pass an…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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