1978 (9) TMI 33 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of service of notice under section 34(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Allegation of illegal order passed by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) behind the back of the petitioner.
3. Revision petition filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) challenging assessment orders for the years 1944-45 and 1946-47.
4. Condonation of delay in filing the revision petition.
5. Relief granted by the CIT in the assessment year 1944-45.
6. Exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner alleged that proper service as required under the rules was not effected on her, rendering the impugned order illegal. The ITO had affixed the notice on the outer door of the house where the petitioner was last known to have resided. The CIT found that the petitioner was properly served, considering the report of the process server and the testimony given under oath. The court noted that while there may have been some defect in service, the petitioner was aware of the demand notices in November 1962 and had filed a revision petition challenging the assessment orders.

2. The petitioner contended that the order passed by the ITO was illegal as it was done behind her back. However, the CIT had given the petitioner an opportunity to present her case and had provided relief in the assessment for the year 1944-45. The court observed that the petitioner was properly heard by the CIT, and no injustice had been done to her. The court declined to interfere with the finding of the CIT that the petitioner was properly served, leading to the dismissal of the petition.

3. The revision petition filed before the CIT challenged the assessment orders for the years 1944-45 and 1946-47. The CIT accepted the revision petition for the year 1944-45 and canceled the assessment, while dismissing the petition for the year 1946-47. The petitioner sought relief under the law, and the CIT, after condoning the delay in filing the revision, granted relief in respect of the assessment year 1944-45.

4. The court noted that the CIT had condoned the delay in the filing of the revision petition and had passed a detailed order providing relief in the assessment for the year 1944-45. The petitioner had filed the revision petition in response to the demand notices received in November 1962, indicating awareness of the assessment orders.

5. The CIT, after considering the delay in filing the revision petition, had given relief to the petitioner in respect of the assessment year 1944-45. The court acknowledged the efforts made by the CIT to address the petitioner's concerns and provide relief within the legal framework.

6. The court concluded that the petitioner had been properly heard by the CIT, who had granted relief as permissible under the law. The court declined to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, as it found no grounds to interfere with the CIT's finding that the petitioner was properly served. Consequently, the petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.