9911796707
TMI Blog1970 (11) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ary to refer to the facts which gave rise to the questions. Rangalal Jajodia (hereinafter referred to as " the deceased ") filed income-tax returns for the years 1942-43 and 1943-44 as well as his excess profits tax returns for the corresponding chargeable accounting periods ending December 31, 1941, and December 31, 1942, before the Income-tax Officer, Excess Profits Tax Officer, Madras, Special South Circle. On receipt of the returns, the officer issued the requisite statutory notices to the assessee for production of accounts and also other evidence in support of the returns under sections 22(4) and 23(2) of the Act and under the corresponding provisions of section 30 of the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940. Rangalal Jajodia complied with the aforesaid notice. But before the assessments to the income-tax and excess profits tax could be made, Rangalal Jajodia died on January 11, 1946. Rangalal Jajodia was survived by Shankarlal Jajodia, son by a predeceased wife, Aruna Devi, the second wife, and children by the second wife. Rangalal Jajodia had made a will on April 16, 1945, whereby Aruna Devi and one Ram Kumar Bhuwalka were executrix and executor respectively. Shankarlal Jajodia w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ia by executors, Mrs. Aruna Devi and another. The assessments were made on October 29, 1952, more than four years after the end of the assessment years 1942-43 and 1943-44 respectively. The executrix, Aruna Devi, appealed against the assessments contending before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that the assessments were barred by limitation and that the previous Appellate Assistant Commissioner's direction to make assessments on her was invalid. It was also contended that reasonable opportunities were not given to Aruna Devi before the assessments were made. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner on April 16, 1955, held that the assessments were validly made on a valid direction by the previous Appellate Assistant Commissioner. He however, set aside the assessments directing the Revenue Officer to complete them after giving the executrix a fresh opportunity to object to the assessment. Aruna Devi appealed to the Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal rejected the appeals on the ground that the assessments had been set aside by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner with the direction to give sufficient opportunities to her. On a reference taken by Aruna Devi to the High Court, the Hig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny order, assessment or reassessment may be made, shall apply to a reassessment made under section 27 or to an assessment or reassessment made on the assessee or any person in consequence of or to give effect to any finding or direction contained in an order under section 31, section 33, section 33A, section 33B, section 66 or section 66A. " Counsel for the revenue in C. A. Nos. 2336 to 2339 of 1966 contended that the second proviso saved the assessment from the bar of limitation by reason of an order of assessment having been made in consequence of a finding or direction given by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, and, secondly, that Aruna Devi was a person intimately connected with the assessment and that in fact the assessment was made on her, but the assessment was set aside because no notice was given to her. Counsel for the appellant, Aruna Devi, in C. A. Nos. 2332 to 2335 of 1966, on the other hand, contended, first, that Aruna Devi was not an assessee and, therefore, the benefit of the second proviso to section 34(3) of the Act would not avail. Secondly, it was said that Aruna Devi was not intimately connected with the assessment and was not an assessee, because there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The assessment order contains intrinsic evidence to that effect as also of repeated intimation having been given to Shankarlal Jajodia after the death of Rangalal Jajodia. No reply having been received from Shankarlal Jajodia, the assessment was completed under section 24B of the Act through the legal heirs and representatives including Aruna Devi. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner on an appeal preferred by Shankarlal Jajodia set aside the assessment because no notice was given to Aruna Devi though the assessment proceeding was against her as a legal representative. The lack of a notice does not amount to the revenue authority having had no jurisdiction to assess, but that the assessment was defective by reason of notice not having been given to her. An assessment proceeding does not cease to be a proceeding under the Act merely by reason of want of notice. It will be a proceeding liable to be challenged and corrected. Similarly, if there is a mistake as to name or there is a misdescription of the name, the proceeding will be liable to be challenged and corrected by giving notice to the assessee subject to such just exceptions as an assessee can take under law. The direction gi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the decision of this court in S. C. Prashar v. Vasantsen Dwarkadas. The facts of that case are entirely different and are of no assistance for the reason that in the present appeals Aruna Devi was impleaded as a party to the assessment proceedings as a legal representative of Rangalal Jajodia. The words " any person " were construed in Murlidhar's case , to be confined to a person intimately connected with the assessment year under appeal. It was said in that case that : " Modification or setting aside of assessment made on a firm, joint Hindu family, association of persons, for a particular year may affect the assessment for the said year on a partner or partners of the firm, Member or members of the Hindu undivided family or the individual, as the case may be. In such cases though the latter are not eo nomine parties to the appeal, their assessments depend upon the assessments on the former. The said instances are only illustrative. It is not necessary to pursue the matter further. We would, therefore, hold that the expression ' any person ' in the setting in which it appears must be confined to a person intimately connected in the aforesaid sense with the assessments of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
