9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (5) TMI 150X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Tax Act. The assessing officer fixed the turnover at ₹ 14,28,583/- as having escaped assessment. At the time of assessment the assessee dealer put forward the objection challenging the validity of the notice under Section 21 on the ground to which I shall refer presently, but that objection was overruled. In appeal also a similar plea was taken, but it did not find favour with the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial). The case was, however, remanded in appeal affording the dealer an opportunity to produce the parties to whom the sales were said to have been made by endorsement of railway receipts and to explain the survey dated 29th November, 1971. Against the order of remand the, dealer preferred a revision urging that the proceedings ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me of the new firm was obtained by the dealer. The notice under Section 21 was, however, issued in the name of the old Firm and was served on 26th March 1974 on Sri Sohan Lai Balotra who signed it for Sikri Brothers. It was also available from the record that Sohanlal Balotra was the Accountant of the Firm Sikri Brother and Co. Mention may also be made here that the provisional assessment for a period of three months during the year l968-69 had been set aside by the Assistant Commissioner (Judl.) on 26th March, 1970 on the ground that the old Firm having been dissolved on 1st September,' 1967, and the new Firm under the style Sikri Brothers and company had been reconstituted the assessing authorities should have taken the assessment pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... would be illegal and void. Noticing the argument of the learned counsel that the service of the requisite notice on the assessee is a condition precedent to the validity of any reassessment made under Section 34 and if a valid notice is not issued, as required, the proceedings taken by the Income Tax Officer in pursuance of an invalid notice and consequent orders of re-assessment passed by her would be void and inoperative, Gajendra-gadkar, J. speaking for the Court, observed that "this contention is well founded"- A similar view was taken by a Division Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Haji Allah Banda & Sons (Tax Law) Diary, Volume VIII, 1976 at p. 157 where at page 158 the. Division Bench stated that there is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th the notice, filed a return showing his status as Chandrabhan Johurmull, deceased, represented by Sewlal Daga and as the assessee correctly understood the purpose for which the notice under Section 34 was issued to him, and, in compliance with the notice, had filed a return showing himself to be the legal representative of his father, there was waiver of the defect in the notice, and the reassessment was valid. The contention was rejected Upon a parity of reasoning even if it were found as stated in the counter affidavit that in the proceedings relating to the year 1969-70 the partner of the Firm had presented a reply dated 26th March, 1970, bearing the name of the Firm as Sikri Brothers that the notice of the final assessment for the yea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
