Law:

Section:

Section 222 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Collection and recovery of tax - Certificate proceedings - Assessment year 1957-58 - Whether before Tax Recovery Officer it is open to assessee to dispute correctness or validity of assessment - Held, no FACTS The assessee was assessed in the status of HUF. As the demand of tax as per assessment remained unpaid a certificate under section 222 was issued in the name of the assessee, HUF, represented by the two receivers. On the basis of the said certificate, case was started in the court of TRO and before the Additional District Magistrate objections were filed on behalf of the certificate-debtors contending, (a) that there was no proper service of the notice of demand on the assessee which was not an undivided Hindu family according to Hindu law; (b) the TRO or an Additional Collector, had no jurisdiction over the town of Calcutta; (c) that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the TRO could proceed only against the receivers but not directly against the assessee as he did. The TRO rejected the objection petition. The Certificate Officer observed that the assessment had been made in the status of a HUF and the certificate under section 222 had also been filed against the HUF and the names of the members comprising the Hindu undivided family had also been mentioned in the assessment order and the certificate filed under section 222. The Certificate Officer, further observed that he could not go beyond the certificate filed and if there had been a partition of the HUF, the matter should have been agitated before the income-tax authorities. The Certificate Officer observed that the demand notice was issued on the HUF and was received by a karamchari of the HUF. He, therefore, held that there had been a proper service of the notice of demand on the HUF. The Commissioner, however, allowed the appeal of the assessee and set aside the order of the TRO. On revision : HELD The assessment was in the name of a HUF, and the names of the members comprising the HUF had also been stated. It had been stated by the respondent that there was no HUF at that time and there could not have been an assessment on the HUF.…

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