Law:

Section:

JUDGMENT Jaganmohan Reddy, J. - We had by our order directed the Income-tax Tribunal at Bombay to state a case on the following questions, viz. : "1.Whether the notice under sections 30(2) and 30(4) of the Hyderabad Income-tax Act, 1357 F., were duly served on the assessee as required by the law ? 2.Whether the absence of due and proper service of the notices under sections 30(2) and 30(4) of the said Act and/or the other circumstances of the case constituted sufficient cause for the assessee for not filing the return or producing the accounts ? 3.Whether having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case the assessment under section 31(4) of the said Act is illegal, unjustified and untenable and should be set aside ? 4.Whether a valid assessment could be made in respect of the income of the year 1356 F. (as in the present case) under the Hyderabad Income-tax Act which came into force on 1st Azur, 1357 F., and whether such an assessment is illegal and is to be set aside ?" Learned advocate for the appellant states that he does not wish to press question No. 4 as it is concluded by our decision inCommissioner of Income-tax v. Adilakshmi Devamma AIR 1955 Hyd. 225. In that case a similar question fell for determination, viz., "assuming that the Hyderabad Income-tax Act is intra vires, whether the income of the previous year, that is to say, the income of 1356 F. could be validly taxed in 1357 F ?" Dealing with this question we had on the analogy of section 3 of the Hyderabad Income-tax Act which is similar to section 3 of the Indian Income-tax Act observed at page 227 as follows: "This basis of assessing income was changed by the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, when the tax, in the language of Lord Porter delivering the judgments of the Judicial Committee in Indian Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1943] 11 ITR 328, 'is assessed and paid in the next succeeding year upon the result of the year before'. Therefore, our answer to the question referred to earlier in this paragraph is in the affirmative." Our answer to question No. 4 is, therefore, in the affirmative. Before we deal with the remaining questions, it would be pertinent to state…

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