9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the notice served under Section 33B of the Income-tax Act, 1922. 2. Whether the petitioner was given a reasonable opportunity to be heard. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Notice Served Under Section 33B of the Income-tax Act, 1922: The respondent, Commissioner of Income-tax, decided to revise the assessment made on the petitioner for the years 1953-54 to 1961-62 under Section 33B of the Income-tax Act, 1922. According to Section 33B(1), the Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act and if he considers that any order passed therein by the Income-tax Officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, he may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard, pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify, including an order enhancing or modifying the assessment, or canceling the assessment and directing a fresh assessment. The Commissioner issued a notice to the petitioner at both her declared address in Basirhat and another address at No. 20, Mullick Street, Calcutta, as well as by registered post. Notices were served under the Code of Civil Procedure by affixation at both addresses. The notice sent to the Basirhat address by registered post came back undelivered, while the notice sent to Mullick Street address was redirected and served upon the petitioner in Badasar, Rajasthan, on May 8, 1963. The petitioner argued that she received the notice only on May 8, 1963, and the hearing was fixed for May 9, 1963, which did not provide a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The court agreed, stating that a notice giving an unreasonably short time does not fulfill the conditions of Section 33B. The court emphasized that the giving of opportunity is not a matter of form but of substance, and a notice served on May 8 for a hearing on May 9 is unreasonably short. 2. Whether the Petitioner Was Given a Reasonable Opportunity to Be Heard: The petitioner argued that she did not receive a reasonable opportunity to be heard as she received the notice only on May 8, 1963, and the hearing was fixed for May 9, 1963. The court agreed, stating that a notice giving an unreasonably short time does not fulfill the conditions of Section 33B. The court emphasized that the giving of opportunity is not a matter of form but of substance, and a notice served on May 8 for a hearing on May 9 is unreasonably short. The respondent argued that the Commissioner was bound to send the notice to the address disclosed by the petitioner in her statutory returns, namely, Basirhat address. The court agreed that the initial duty of the Commissioner is to try to serve an assessee at the address disclosed in the returns. However, the court found that the service at Basirhat did not amount to service under Order V, Rule 17, of the Code of Civil Procedure. The serving officer merely stated that he tried to contact the petitioner for personal service but having failed, served the notice by affixation. The court found that the serving officer did not conform to the procedure prescribed by Order V, Rule 17, and the service was not according to law. The court concluded that there was no service of the notice upon the petitioner at the Basirhat address, and the notice served at Badasar on May 8 for a hearing on May 9 was too short a notice for anybody to comply with. Therefore, the petitioner was not given a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the proposal for revision of the assessment order. Conclusion: For the reasons stated above, the court upheld the argument that the petitioner was not given a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the proposal for revision of the assessment order. The court quashed the order of revision and issued a writ of certiorari. There was no order as to costs.
|
