| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1959 SLG 321 1959 SLD 321 (1959) 37 ITR 329 |
Bombay High Court
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 454 OF 1958, JANUARY 9, 1959
SHELAT, J
B.A. Palkhivala and N.A. Palkhivala for the Petitioner. G.N. Joshi for the
Respondent
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 454 OF 1958, JANUARY 9, 1959
SHELAT, J
B.A. Palkhivala and N.A. Palkhivala for the Petitioner. G.N. Joshi for the
Respondent
Ramnivas Hanumanbux Somani
v.
S. Venkataraman, Income Tax Officer
Law:
Section:
Section 147, read with sections 188,189 and 282 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (corresponding to section 34, read with sections 26, 44 and 63 of Indian Income-tax Act, 1922) - Income escaping assessment - General - Assessment year 1949-50 - In 1940 petitioner formed a partnership with three other partners - In 1948, a fresh partnership was formed in same name after dissolution of earlier firm and same business was carried on by new firm with petitioner and another erstwhile partner at same business premises - New firm, in its turn was again dissolved in 1955 whereafter petitioner carried on same business in same name and style at same premises as its sole proprietor - In 1958, ITO issued notice under section 34(1) of 1922 Act against firm for assessment year 1949-50 - Employee of department could not contact any one representing firm and in spite of his attempts to obtain addresses of partners of firm he could not obtain any information and ultimately, notices were affixed on premises of last known address of firm where petitioner was still carrying on his proprietary business - Whether on facts, there was no discontinuance of business of firm which was started in 1940 and, therefore, section 44 of 1922 Act could not be said to be applicable to facts of instant case but it would be a case of succession within meaning of section 26(2) of 1922 Act - Held, yes- Whether for assessment year 1949-50, income that escaped assessment was income of firm and, hence, for purpose of section 34 of 1922 Act, assessee was firm - Held, yes - Whether petitioner being sole proprietor of business of firm after dissolution of firm in 1955, notice addressed in name of firm of which he was at date of service sole proprietor, even if section 44 of 1922 Act were to be applicable, would be a notice upon him as a partner of dissolved firm and therefore, it would be a valid notice so far as he was concerned - Held, yes - Whether, therefore, ITO had jurisdiction to proceed with assessment on basis of said notice - Held, yes FACTS In the year 1940 the petitioner formed a partnership and commenced carrying on business in the name of the firm. In or about 1946 one of the partners died andβ¦
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