9911796707
TMI Blog1967 (7) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat behalf on March 6, 1951. On May 21, 1954, the Income-tax Officer determined the respondents' total income at Rs. 75,957. In appeal against the order, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, " A " Range, Bangalore, by order dated November 4, 1961, set aside the order and directed the Income-tax Officer to make a fresh assessment after making inquiries on certain matters specified in the order. At the request of the respondents under section 66(2) of the Mysore Income-tax Act, the Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore, referred the following questions to the High Court of Mysore : " 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the assessee's case whether within the meaning of section 34 of the Mysore Income-tax Act, if a notic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ealed to this court with special leave. The question arising in this appeal must, it is common ground, be determined in the light of the provisions of the Mysore Income-tax Act, 1923. Even after the merger of the State of Mysore with the Union of India, a proceeding for assessment of income-tax relating to the assessment year 1949-50 has to be heard and disposed of under the Mysore Act. Section 34 of the Mysore Income-tax Act reads as follows : " If for any reason, profits or gains chargeable to income-tax have escaped assessment in any year, or have been assessed at too low a rate, the Income-tax Officer may, at any time within four years of the end of that year, serve on the person liable to pay tax on such income, profits or gains, o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rther inquiry to be made in the light of the directions given by him. It is difficult to appreciate the grounds on which it could be held that the proceeding for reassessment to tax the income which had escaped assessment in the year 1949-50 commenced after due notice served on March, 1951, was barred. The High Court was, in our judgment, plainly in error in holding that the proceeding for reassessment was barred. It must also be remembered that the respondents had under an order of the Commissioner obtained a reference on the first question set out hereinbefore. That question was not pressed before the High Court, and it must be deemed to have been answered against the respondents. That question could not thereafter be re-agitated by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
