Case Details

Citation(s)
1956 SLG 175 1956 SLD 175 (1956) 29 ITR 103
Calcutta High Court

SINHA, J.

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

Laduram Taparia

v.

D.K. Ghosh

Law:

Section:

Section 156, read with section 226, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [Corresponding to section 29, read with section 46(5A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922] - Notice of demand - Assessment year 1945-46 - Whether if there is an assessment order and a demand notice under section 29 of 1922 Act and on appeal amount assessed is reduced, then it would be sufficient to intimate assessee that amount due had been so reduced and it is not essential in such case to serve second notice under section 29 of 1922 Act - Held, yes - Whether there is no rule that a particular kind of assessment should be taken by Collector or by any officer subordinate to him and in either case, parties can go up to ultimate authority, namely, Board of Revenue - Held, yes - Whether where moneys are or may become due to defaulting assessee, and express provision is made in statute granting power to ITO to proceed against same, exercise of such power cannot be said to be oppressive - Held, yes FACTS The petitioner was a partnership firm which was duly registered under section 26A of the 1922 Act. The ITO had information that the constitution of the petitioner firm was not genuine and he refused to continue the registration under section 26A, and assessed the petitioner firm as an unregistered firm. He also added to the total income of the petitioner firm the total income of five other firms, on the ground that they were not bona fide firms but were benami business carried on for the purpose of depriving the Government of income-tax. Those five firms were also assessed separately by way of 'protective assessment'. On or about 30-3-1950, a notice under section 29 of the 1922 Act was issued upon the petitioner calling upon it to make payment of tax. The petitioner firm, as well as the said five firms, preferred appeals against their respective assessments, as also against the respective orders refusing registration under section 26A of the 1922 Act. On or about 26-3-1951, the ITO forwarded to the Certificate Officer, a certificate within the meaning of section 46(2) of the 1922 Act requesting the latter to commence proceedings for recovery of the tax from the petitioners. On 31-3-1951, a certificate…
🔒
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