9911796707
TMI Blog1971 (9) TMI 22X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he High Court of Punjab. The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the appellants primarily on the ground that they had adequate alternative remedy under the income-tax law. The father of the appellant, Seth Multani Mal Modi, was a shareholder in the Modi Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. On March 5, 1956, that company declared interim dividends to its shareholders. Under that declaration Seth Multani Mal Modi was entitled to Rs. 60,265 as interim dividends. The dividend warrants were despatched on June 21, 1956, and the interim dividends declared were confirmed by the general meeting of the company on January 17, 1957. Seth Multani Mal Modi died on October 22,1957. Thereafter, the assessment of Seth Multani Mal Modi for the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation under section 27 of the Act of 1922 on December 5, 1960, for setting aside that order but that was rejected. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner set aside the assessment made, by his order dated June 15, 1963, on the ground that the notice issued under section 34(1)(b) had not been served on appellant No. 2 and that it was necessary to issue notices to all the legal representatives of Multani Mal Modi. He directed that the Income-tax Officer may proceed to assess the assessees in accordance with law. On April 1, 1962, the Income-tax Act, 1961, came into force. On January 7, 1964, the Income-tax Officer issued notices to the appellants under section 148 of that Act. Aggrieved by those notices the appellants moved the Hig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clearly Mr. Sen's contention is unsustainable because the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's order was not passed under the 1961 Act. Therefore, the department cannot take any support from section 150(1) of the Act of 1961. Mr. Sen next relied on proviso (iii) of section 34 (sic.) of the 1922 Act. That provision cannot lend any support for the notices under section 148 of the 1961 Act. It is unnecessary for us to decide in this appeal whether the department could have initiated proceedings under the proviso, as no such proceedings had been initiated. All that we have to consider in this appeal is whether the impugned notices issued under the 1961 Act are valid notices. We have no hesitation that those notices are invalid for the reasons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
