9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity and legality of reassessment notice under section 22(2) read with section 34(1)(a) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. 2. Proper service of the reassessment notice on the assessee. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity and Legality of Reassessment Notice: The primary question in this case was whether the reassessment made against the assessee based on the notice issued by the Income-tax Officer under section 22(2) read with section 34(1)(a) was valid and legal. The original assessment for the year 1951-52 was completed on January 11, 1952. Subsequently, the Income-tax Officer received information suggesting income had escaped assessment. After obtaining the necessary sanction, the Income-tax Officer issued a notice under section 34(1)(a) on April 16, 1959, which was served on May 4, 1959. The assessee filed a return under protest, challenging the validity of the reassessment. The Tribunal initially upheld the assessee's contention that the notice was improperly served and thus invalid, leading to the cancellation of the assessment. However, upon further appeal and review, it was determined that the reassessment proceedings were valid as the assessee had received and responded to the notice. 2. Proper Service of the Reassessment Notice: The core issue revolved around whether the notice was validly served on the assessee. The notice was served on Kumbhar Nameri, a part-time employee of the assessee, rather than directly on the assessee. The Tribunal, relying on decisions from the Mysore and Kerala High Courts, initially found the service improper. However, the High Court referenced the Bombay High Court's decision in K. C. Tiwari & Sons v. Commissioner of Income-tax, which held that service of notice need not strictly adhere to the modes prescribed in section 63(1) of the Act. The High Court concluded that procedural irregularities in service could be waived if the notice was ultimately received by the assessee, as evidenced by the filing of the return. The High Court emphasized that the two prescribed modes of service (registered post and service similar to a court summons) are not exhaustive. Given that the assessee filed a return in response to the notice, it was inferred that the notice had been received, rendering the service valid. Conclusion: The High Court affirmed the validity of the reassessment notice and the subsequent proceedings. The Tribunal's reliance on decisions from other jurisdictions was distinguished based on the facts of the case. The High Court concluded that the notice served on the temporary employee, which was ultimately received by the assessee, constituted proper service. Consequently, the reassessment under section 34(1)(a) was deemed valid, and the assessee was ordered to pay the costs of the reference to the Commissioner.
|
