9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the notice under section 34(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, for the assessment year 1950-51. 2. Validity of the notice under section 34(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, for the assessment year 1951-52. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the notice under section 34(1)(a) for the assessment year 1950-51: The primary issue in this case pertains to the validity of a notice issued by the Income-tax Officer under section 34(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The assessee received two notices dated 9th March 1959: one under section 34(1)(a) indicating the assessment year as 1949-50, and another under sections 22(2) and 38, explicitly stating the assessment year as 1950-51. The assessee did not file a return in response to these notices, prompting a subsequent notice under section 22(4) dated 15th July 1959. The assessee pointed out the discrepancy in the assessment years mentioned in the notices and requested a fresh notice with the correct assessment year. The Income-tax Officer clarified via letter dated 16th July 1959 that the proceedings were for the assessment year 1950-51, and the reassessment was carried out accordingly. The Tribunal upheld the validity of the notice under section 34(1)(a) by reading it in conjunction with the notice under section 22(2), determining that the intention was to reopen the assessment for the year 1950-51. The Tribunal's decision was challenged, leading to the current reference. The court examined the requirements of section 34(1), emphasizing that a notice under this section must specify with clarity the assessment year for which the assessment is sought to be reopened. The court noted that the notice under section 34(1)(a) must be a valid notice, as it is a condition precedent to the validity of any reassessment. The court found that the notice under section 34(1)(a) mentioned the assessment year 1949-50, while the notice under section 22(2) mentioned the assessment year 1950-51. There was no indication that these notices were related or intended to form part of a single notice. Consequently, the court concluded that the notice under section 34(1)(a) was invalid for the assessment year 1950-51, rendering the reassessment invalid. 2. Validity of the notice under section 34(1)(a) for the assessment year 1951-52: The court noted that the question regarding the validity of the notice for the assessment year 1951-52 was based on a wrong assumption. Unlike the notices for the assessment year 1950-51, both the notices under sections 34(1)(a) and 22(2) for the assessment year 1951-52 correctly mentioned the assessment year as 1951-52. Consequently, there was no scope for the argument that no valid notice under section 34(1)(a) was issued for the assessment year 1951-52. This position was conceded by the assessee's representative, and therefore, the question regarding the validity of the notice for the assessment year 1951-52 did not survive. Conclusion: The court concluded that the notice under section 34(1)(a) for the assessment year 1950-51 was not valid in law due to the discrepancy in the assessment years mentioned in the notices. As for the assessment year 1951-52, both notices correctly mentioned the assessment year, and thus, the notice under section 34(1)(a) was valid. The Commissioner was directed to pay the costs of the reference to the assessee.
|
