1933 (8) TMI 6 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the notice under Section 34 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922.
2. Determination of when the income for the year 1928-29 escaped assessment.
3. Whether the notice under Section 34 was served within the period of limitation.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Notice under Section 34 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922:
The primary question was whether the notice dated 31st March 1931, served under Section 34, constituted a valid notice. The court observed that the notice, although in the form of a letter, contained all the necessary details required by the prescribed form. The court noted, "It is quite true that the notice was in the form of a letter instead of being in the common form prescribed by the Central Board of Revenue but it was conceded by Mr. Pugh that in fact all the details provided for in that form of notice had, in fact, been dealt with in the letter." The court concluded that the notice sufficiently complied with the requirements of Section 34.

2. Determination of When the Income for the Year 1928-29 Escaped Assessment:
The argument on behalf of the applicants (Messrs. Burn & Company) was that Section 34 should not apply as the income did not escape assessment. The court noted that Messrs. Burn & Company had filed a return for the year 1928-29 in response to a notice, and thus the income did not escape assessment. The court stated, "We should be inclined to hold that in all the circumstances of the case the income of Messrs. Burn & Company in respect of the year 1928-29 did not escape assessment." However, this point was not definitively resolved as the court focused on the limitation period issue.

3. Whether the Notice under Section 34 was Served Within the Period of Limitation:
The pivotal issue was whether the notice under Section 34 was served within the permissible period. Section 34 allows for action within one year of the end of the year in which the income escaped assessment. The court interpreted the phrase "in any year" to mean the year during which the assessment should have been initiated. The court concluded, "We think we ought to accept the contention put forward by Mr. Pugh on behalf of the assessees and hold that the expression 'in any year' must be read as meaning the year during which proceedings in assessment in respect of that very year should have been initiated." Consequently, the notice served on 31st March 1931, was deemed not to be within the allowable period, rendering it invalid.

Conclusion:
The court held that the notice under Section 34 was not valid as it was not served within the period of limitation allowed by the section. The court stated, "We accordingly hold that the notice served on the assesses in this case under Section 34 was not valid notice in that it was not served within the period of limitation allowed by the section." The reference was answered in favor of the assessees, and no order as to costs was made.