9911796707
TMI Blog1960 (4) TMI 71X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax Officer and the decision of the Income-tax Officer has been confirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and also by the Tribunal. The assessee is a firm of four partners with equal shares manufacturing and selling bidis at Nasik. For the assessment year 1952-53 for which the corresponding accounting year was Samvat year 2007, the assessee submitted a return of its total income on 19th February, 1953. Thereafter notices under sections 22(4) and 23(2) for the production of the assessee's books of accounts and explaining the return were issued to the firm by the Income-tax Officer and as many as sixteen adjournments were given for the purpose at the request of the assessee extending over a period of about four years. Finally, an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had also accepted the demand notice and the challan, the assessment order and the notice under section 28(3) for levy of penalty and many other processes without any objection from the assessee firm. The notice under section 23(2) along with the Income- tax Officer's letter dated 4th January, 1957, fixing the appointment for 18th January, 1957, and directing the assessee to produce all evidence and informing the assessee that no further adjournment would be given were also served on the manager, Sri Parasare, and the assessee had admitted service of this notice and he letter. In view of these facts, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that Sri Parasare was acting as a duly accredited agent in his dealings with the Income-tax Officer thr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e us two contentions. It is argued in the first place that in order that there should be a valid service, the person on whom the service is effected must have authority given to him in writing to received such service and the mere implied authority will not be enough. Secondly, he has argued that if implied authority be held as sufficient, there was no such implied authority in the present case. Section 63(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act states: "A notice or requisition under this Act may be served on the person therein named either by post or, as if it were a summons issued by a court, under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908)." Mr. Palkhivala's argument, therefore, is that in this case the service was neither by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... letter dated 24th January, 1957, which was in reply to this request of the assessee was not a notice or requisition under section 63 and no grievance can be made on the ground that this letter was not served on a person who had no authority in writing to receive the same. The grievance if at all could be raised only with regard to the notice under section 23(2) issued on 4th January, 1957, but as we have already pointed out, the receipt of that notice was admitted by the assessee. Even assuming, therefore, that there was some procedural irregularity with regard to the service of that notice, the assessee must be deemed to have waived that irregularity by admitting that he had received the same and having thereafter proceeded to obtain a fu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
