| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1960 SLG 22 1960 SLD 22 1960 PTD 240 |
Lahore High Court
Civil Reference Case No. 5 of 1952 referred by the Income tax Appellate Tribunal, Lahore on the 29th July 1952 under section 66 (1) of the income tax Act. Answered on 5-02-1957. dates of hearing : 2nd, 3rd & 4th January 1957
B. Z. KAIKAUS AND MUHAMMAD YAQUB, ALI, JJ
Sh. Bashir Ahmad, Hidayat Ali Taib and Amir Ahmad for Appellant. Sh. Abdul Haque for
Respondent
Civil Reference Case No. 5 of 1952 referred by the Income tax Appellate Tribunal, Lahore on the 29th July 1952 under section 66 (1) of the income tax Act. Answered on 5-02-1957. dates of hearing : 2nd, 3rd & 4th January 1957
B. Z. KAIKAUS AND MUHAMMAD YAQUB, ALI, JJ
Sh. Bashir Ahmad, Hidayat Ali Taib and Amir Ahmad for Appellant. Sh. Abdul Haque for
Respondent
MUHAMMAD IDREES BARRY & Co. LAHORE
VS
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNJAB AND N. W. F. P.LAHORE
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: O.III,r.2,O.V,r.12,O.XXX,r.3
Law: Income Tax Act, 1922
Section: 66(1),63(1),22(2),22(4)
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. III, r. 2 and O. V, r. 12 Appointment of agent to accept service of process must be in writing. To accept the argument that service in accordance with Order V, rule 12 does not need an authority in writing, would mean that for the service of no process is such an authority needed, which is opposed to the imperative provision of Order III, rule 2, Civil P. C. Messrs Haji Shahab ud Din and others v. The Commis¬sioner of Income tax Civil Reference No. 8 of 1950 ref. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXX, r. 3 Service of process on firm Service effected on person having control of business of firm Valid. In the case of a firm, under Order XXX, rule 3, Civil P. C., service upon any person having, at the time of service, the control or management of the partnership business, is valid. (c) Income tax Act (XI of 1922), S. 66 (1) High Court may change the form of question referred, preserving its substance. The High Court is not bound by the particular form in which a question has been framed by the Appellate Tribunal, and although a new question cannot be framed, the High Court may change the form of question preserving its substance. Where the question referred was : "whether there is any material in support of the Tribunals finding that H was the assessees agent empowered to accept service of notice within the meaning of Order V, rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with section 63 (1) of the Income-¬tax Act, the High Court changed the question to whether in the circumstances of the case, service of notice on H was effective so as to bind the assessee. Seth Gurmukh Singh v. Commissioner of Income tax, Punjab 1944 I T R 399 ref. (d) Income tax Act (XI of 1922), S. 63 (1) Service of process Technical irregularity, in absence of prejudice¬-Service effective. Service of notice under section 22 (2), Income tax Act was effected on an employee of the assessee firm, who, in turn, passed it on to the Manager. The firm, however, did not submit a return in answer to the notice, but on a subsequent notice under section 22 (4) to produce accounts, the firm requested the Income tax officer to grant an adjournment for producing…
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