Case Details

Citation(s)
1962 SLG 310 1962 SLD 310 (1962) 44 ITR 325
Gujarat High Court
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9 OF 1960, JUNE 14, 1960
DESAI, C.J. AND MIABHOY, J.
H.C. Shah for the Petitioner. J.M. Thakore for the
Respondent

Madanlal Mathurdas

v.

Chunilal, Income Tax Officer

Law:

Section:

Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Corresponding to section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922) - Income escaping assessment - Issue of notice for - Assessment year 1949-50 - Notice under section 34(1)(a) of 1922 Act for relevant assessment year was issued on 24-3-1958 but it was served on assessee on 2-4-1958 - Assessee contended that notice served on him was bad and inoperative as it was given after expiry of eight years which is period of limitation for same laid down in section 34 - Whether expressions 'issue' and 'serve' in section 34 of 1922 Act must be read as used correctly and exactly and not loosely and inexactly - Held, yes - Whether section 34(1) of 1922 Act, as amended in 1956, has left out words 'within eight years' and such proviso must be read as a whole and in manes as would give fullest effect to all sub-clauses of proviso - Held, yes - Whether, therefore, notice served on assessee was valid and effective - Held, yes Word and Phrases : Expression 'year' as occurring in section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. FACTS A notice under section 34 of the 1922 Act issued on 24-3-1958 was served on the assessee petitioner on 2-4-1958, intimating that his income for assessment year 1949-50 had escaped assessment. The petitioner was a resident of the former Gondal State which became a part of the State of Saurashtra on 1-4-1948. The Indian Finance Act, 1950, was enacted by the Parliament and received the assent of the President on 31-3-1950. As a result of said enactment the State of Saurashtra was integrated with the Union of India came with effect from 1-4-1950. The petitioner contended that the notice served on him was bad and inoperative as it was given after expiry of eight years which is the period of limitation for the same laid down in section 34 of the 1922 Act. On writ : HELD In terms express and explicit the latter part of section 34(1) of the 1922 Act laid down that in a case falling under clause (a), the notice had to be served on the assessee at any time within eight years. The relevant and material part of section 34(1) of the 1922 Act after the amendment of 1956, it will be noticed, leaves out the words 'within eight…
🔒
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