9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to the cancellation of registration of a firm by the Income-tax Officer for the assessment year 1964-65, based on the alleged non-existence of a partner, Nandram Jhunjhunwalla. Analysis: The judgment delivered by Justice Sabyasachi Mukherjee of the High Court of Calcutta pertains to an application challenging the order passed by the Income-tax Officer canceling the registration of a firm for the assessment year 1964-65. The firm had been granted registration prior to the relevant year and had applied for renewal, which was granted during the original assessment in March 1969. Subsequently, a notice was issued on March 15, 1973, alleging the non-existence of one of the partners, Nandram Jhunjhunwalla, and seeking cause for not canceling the registration. The assessee replied, disputing the non-existence of Nandram and requesting more time to respond. The impugned order was then passed. The petitioner contended that no reasonable opportunity was given, as only seven days were provided, and further time was not granted despite a request. However, the court held that the opportunity given was reasonable, as the assessee failed to produce any evidence by the time of the order. The petitioner did not specify what evidence would have been presented with more time or why additional time was needed. Another contention was that the notice indicated a pre-determined mind by the Income-tax Officer, but the court disagreed, stating that the notice allowed the assessee to rebut the tentative conclusion regarding the partner's non-existence. The court emphasized that the notice did not show any bias. Regarding natural justice, it was argued that all particulars of the information leading to the partner's alleged non-existence were not provided. The court ruled that conveying the gist of the enquiry to the affected party is sufficient compliance with natural justice, and the petitioner had the opportunity to present evidence but did not request a personal hearing. The final contention was that the Income-tax Officer erred in holding the partner as non-existent, but the court found that there were sufficient materials for the Officer to reach that conclusion. The court also dismissed the argument that section 186 only applies to existing firms, emphasizing that the Act does not support such a contention. Additionally, the court noted that the impugned order was appealable under the Income-tax Act, and since no appeal was made, the application was deemed meritless and dismissed with costs.
|
