9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog1932 (10) TMI 12X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ni Lal requesting this Court to ask the Income-tax Commissioner to state a case. The application came up for hearing on June 24, 1932, and we directed a notice to go. In compliance with that notice the learned Government Advocate has appeared to show cause against the granting of the application. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, and as we are going to reject the application, it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rn which was in respect of the income derived from the two branches at Benares alone, and it did not contain any mention of the income from the Jaunpur and Piparia branches. On July 21, 1931, the income tax officer at Benares pointed out this omission, and once more granted time upto July 24, 1931 to comply with the notice issued under Section 22 (2). This was not done, but on July 23, 1931 an app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Section 64 took away that power. The second point raised was that the return filed was a complete compliance with the provisions of Sec. 22(2) and if it was "incorrect or incomplete," proceedings should have been taken under Sec. 23(2) of the Act. We are of opinion that a return which deliberately failed to comply with the rule contained in section 22 (2), that the return was to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . In that and similar cases Sec. 23(2) would apply. The next point is whether the assessee had enough time to comply with the order. In our opinion he had. The next point was that the old practice, namely, of demanding return at Piparia and Jaunpur, should have been continued. But this was a matter for the income-tax officer at the headquarters to decide, and we have no voice in the matter. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
