9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (6) TMI 130X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on, namely. assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73. It is stated by the counsel for the assessee that no assessment order was passed on the basis of those two notices under section 148. Thereafter, for the assessment year 1971-72 another notice under section 148 was issued on 31-3-1980 and for assessment year 1972-73 also another notice under section 148 was issued on 17-3-1981. The assessment for the assessment year 1971-72 was made ex parte under section 144 on 29-3-1984 on an income of Rs. 45,970. For the assessment year 1972-73, assessment was completed under section 143(3) on an income of Rs. 2,53,400 on 20-2-1985. For both the assessment years, the firms were treated as URF. The assessment order for the assessment year 1972-73 was set aside by the ld. CIT, (A) vide his order dated 18-3-1986. For the assessment year 1971-72, the matter was decided by the ld. AAC who followed the order of the ld. CIT (A) and set aside the assessment for that year also vide his order dated 28-11-1986. Both the authorities, while deciding the appeal, inter alia, rejected the plea on behalf of the assessee-firm that the assessments had become time-barred as they could not have been framed on 29-3-19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TO, D-Ward who had issued the notice. Shri Ranka showed us original notice which is on his record. He submitted that this showed that the notice had been duly issued and served and hence the CIT (A) was not correct in writing in his order that such a notice was not issued or served. He also referred to page 3 of the paper book which is copy of the order sheet entry dated 9-10-1973 and which shows that notice under section 148 was issued by the ITO to the assessee-firm. 5. Similarly for the assessment year 1971-72, he filed photocopies of the notice served on the assessee as well as photocopy of a certified true copy from ITO, B-Ward, Sriganganagar. The true copy of the notice also shows a note which reads "For reasons for issue of notice under section 148 see order sheet entry dated 9-10-1973". He submitted that although he did not have a copy of the order sheet entry for the assessment year 1971-72 and although the AAC had written in his order that there was no mention of issue of notice on the order sheet entry, Shri Ranka submitted that it was not assessee's fault and assessee could not be held responsible for not making entry on the order sheet In respect of a notice which wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that in this case Shri Hulasmal Chopra had been appointed as a Receiver on 28-7-1972 and his authority expired only on 22-10-1986. He pointed out that even the second set of notices were issued through Official Receiver Shri Hulasmal Chopra and hence it was not correct to say that a notice issued or served on Shri Hulasmal Chopra was not a valid notice or that he had no authority to receive a notice on behalf of the firm. He submitted that the Receiver had duly authorised Shri Rishabhdas to file the return. 7. The ld. D/R submitted that the order-sheet entry dated 9-10-1973 for the assessment year 1972-73 stated that no notice under section 139(2) had been issued whereas it should have been that no return under section 139(1) had been filed. Further, since the Assessing Officer wanted to assess the representative assessee, he had to consciously invoke provisions of section 160/161 and that is why the second set of notices was served on Shri Hulasmal Chopra. He submitted that in view of the decision in the case of M.L. John v. ITO [1983] 139 ITR 972 (All.), a Receiver could not be assessed for income prior to his appointment as Receiver and hence the Assessing Officer had discov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to issue of notices when assessment proceedings were already pending. 9. Shri C.L. Jhanwar submitted that it was not a case regarding section 163; it is a simple case of assessment of a firm and any one authorised to receive notices on behalf of the firm could receive it and in the instant case the receiver was authorised to receive the notices. Since the first set of notices had already been served on the Receiver, the second set of notices issued was invalid and assessments completed beyond the time permissible on the basis of notices issued on 9-10-1973 were barred by time. 10. We have carefully considered the submissions from all the sides and have perused the material on record. We fully agree with the arguments advanced by Svs. N.M. Ranka and C.L. Jhanwar that once notices under section 148 have been issued, the proceedings initiated through them have to be taken to their logical end. In other words, either assessments should be framed on the basis of those proceedings or the Assessing Officer may specifically drop the proceedings, may be on the ground that no sufficient material was available for holding that income liable to tax had escaped assessment. Even if an assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
