9911796707
TMI Blog1973 (4) TMI 7X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny was at Jaipur. The Income-tax Officer, Ajmer, issued notices under section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (to be hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), to the assessee calling upon it to submit its income-tax returns in respect of the assessment years mentioned earlier. In response to those notices the assessee submitted its returns on August 11, 1953. When those returns were pending before the Income-tax Officer, Ajmer, the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle IV, issued fresh notices to the assessee under section 34 calling upon it to submit its income-tax returns in respect of those very assessment years. The assessee did not submit any return. On the other hand, it wrote a letter to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle IV, say ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction is, therefore, rejected." From the above observations it is clear that the contention taken before the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle, was that the assessee should be assessed by the Income-tax Officer, Jaipur, who possibly had acquired territorial jurisdiction over the assessee by the time the assessment proceedings were going on before the Central Circle. No objection appears to have been taken on the ground that the Ajmer Income-tax Officer was seized of the proceedings in view of the notices issued by him under section 34. The contention now advanced, namely, that in view of the circumstances that the Ajmer Income-tax Officer had already issued notices under section 34 and that the assessee had already submitted its returns ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lready been filed for that year and requested him to treat the said return as one submitted in compliance with the notice under section 34(1A). The Income-tax Officer only complied with the request. Under the circumstances, there is no merit in the appellant's contention that the Income-tax Officer was not competent to issue the notice under section 34(1A) for the assessment year 1946-47." Here again, it may be noticed that the only contention taken before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was that the notice issued by the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle, under section 34(1A) was invalid in respect of the assessment year 1946-47, and not in respect of other assessment years. It may be noticed that by its letter dated April 2, 1955, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of Income-tax, the following question was submitted by the Tribunal to the High Court in respect of the assessment year 1946-47 : " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, a fresh action under section 34(1A) could be initiated on February 21, 1955, and an assessment made thereon on March 24, 1956, when a return dated August 11, 1953, was already pending before the Income-tax Officer ?" The High Court answered that question in favour of the department. Somewhat similar questions were submitted to the High Court in respect of the assessment years 1947-48 and 1949-50. Those questions were also answered in favour of the department. There is no dispute that if the assessment proceedings under section 34 initiated by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... b-sections (2) and (3)." Ordinarily, an assessee has to be assessed by the Income-tax Officer within whose territorial jurisdiction he resides. But it is open to the Central Board of Revenue to assign any particular class of assessees or any particular type of assessments to an Income-tax Officer of its choice. It was urged on behalf of the department that the Income-tax Officer, Ajmer, had no jurisdiction to assess the assessee in respect of the assessment years with which we are concerned, in view of the notification issued by the Central Board of Revenue on July 1, 1952. That notification, to the extent relevant for our purpose, may now be set out. It reads thus : " Notification No. S.R.O. 1214, dated the 1st July, 1952. In exercis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riods before the integration or merger of the Indian States. (Emphasis is supplied). Jaipur was integrated into India on 7th April, 1949, but for the purposes of income-tax it was integrated as from 1st April, 1950. In view of the aforementioned notification it is clear that the Income-tax Officer, Ajmer, had jurisdiction over the residents of Jaipur after the issue of that notification only in respect of the assessments pending before him and not in respect of any other assessments. Quite clearly the assessee's assessments were not pending before the Income-tax Officer, Ajmer. Hence, the contention advanced on behalf of the assessee that the Income-tax Officer, Ajmer, had jurisdiction over it in respect of the assessment years in questio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
