1962 (12) TMI 72 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to the validity of assessment order and demand notice
Jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer to make the assessment
Validity of penalties in the certificates

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the assessment order and demand notice issued by the Income-tax Officer, arguing that the order assessing income for five years was invalid and illegal. However, it was noted that the petitioners themselves requested the assessment for those years, and the assessment order was not challenged earlier. The court held that since the assessment order was legal, the demand notice was also valid, as it was a demand for tax payable for all five years. The attached form sent to the petitioners detailed the assessment for each year, addressing any grievance the petitioners may have had on this issue.

Regarding the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer who passed the assessment order, it was argued that the officer did not have jurisdiction to assess the petitioners as they were not new assessees. The court interpreted the term "new assessees" to mean those being assessed for the first time after a specific date. However, the petitioners' conduct of inviting the officer to make the assessment without protest disentitled them from challenging the officer's jurisdiction later on. The court cited precedent to support this position, emphasizing that the petitioners had submitted to the officer's jurisdiction without objection.

The petitioner also contended that they could not be made liable to pay penalties as it had been previously decided that the certificates were invalid concerning penalties. However, the court clarified that the earlier invalidation related to different certificates, and the present certificates were not shown to be invalid on any grounds. The demands for tax and penalties by the Union of India were adequately identified in the current certificates, and there was no binding adjudication against them. Ultimately, the court found no merit in the petitioner's arguments and discharged the rule with costs.