2004 (11) TMI 99 - HC - Income Tax

Proceedings initiated under section 148 validity - Tribunal has recorded a finding that there was no dispute with regard to the status of the assessee to whom the notice was issued. Indisputably the name of the assessee s branch finds place in the notice and it is not its case that there is any other person such as Hari Prasad Govind Krishna. The partnership deed also supports the contention of the Department that the assessee-firm was running the business in two names. - We find that the notice was validly issued in the name of the assessee. The finding of the Tribunal on this issue is legally correct. Held that proceedings had been validly initiated under section 148

Summary

Issues:
Validity of notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act for reassessment proceedings.

Analysis:
The High Court of Allahabad was tasked with determining the legality of initiating reassessment proceedings under section 148 of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1971-72. The primary issue revolved around the validity of the notice issued to the assessee, a branch of M/s. Gopi Krishna & Co., under the name of Hari Prasad Govind Krishna. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner had initially favored the assessee's argument that the notice should have been issued in the name of the head office, Gopi Krishna & Co. However, the Tribunal reversed this decision, asserting that the notice was correctly addressed to the assessee and that the proceedings under section 148 were valid.

The court considered the submissions made by both parties. The counsel for the assessee argued that the notice was invalid as it was addressed to Hari Prasad Gopi Krishna instead of the branch office of M/s. Gopi Krishna & Co. The Department's counsel, on the other hand, contended that the notice was validly issued to the assessee. The court examined the partnership deed of the assessee, which mentioned both names - M/s. Gopi Krishna & Co. and M/s. Hari Prasad Gopi Krishna, indicating that the assessee operated under both names for different aspects of its business.

The court distinguished the cases cited by the assessee's counsel, emphasizing that those cases were not applicable to the current scenario. It was noted that in the present case, there was no dispute regarding the status of the assessee, who operated under two names as per the partnership deed. The court highlighted that the notice was correctly addressed to the assessee, and there was no confusion regarding the identity of the recipient. Consequently, the court upheld the Tribunal's finding that the notice was validly issued to the assessee, thereby affirming the legality of the reassessment proceedings under section 148. The court answered the question of law in favor of the Department, concluding the judgment without any order as to costs.