9911796707
TMI Blog1955 (9) TMI 66X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contentions we have to consider are, one that the period of limitation is eight years as contended by the Department and the other is that the period of limitation is four years as contended by the assessee; and turning to section 34 the period of limitation would be eight years if the case falls under section 34(1)(a) and the period of limitation would be four years if the case falls under section 34(1)(b). A case falls under section 34(1)(a) if there is an omission or failure on the part of the assessee to make a return of his income under section 22; and admittedly in this case the assessee has made no return of his income under section 22. Section 34(1)(b) applies where there has been no omission or failure as mentioned in clause (a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... considered Mr. Palkhivala's contention that under section 22(1) if there is a public notice issued by the Income-tax Officer, that notice under the sub- section does not bind the assessee and there is no obligation upon the assessee to make a return. It is said that as the assessee in this case admittedly was a resident of Indore, he was a non-resident and at the material dates he was a foreigner and therefore an obligation can only be cast upon him to make a return provided an individual notice was served upon him under section 22(2). Section 22(1) provides for a constructive notice. If a notice is given in the manner prescribed under section 22(1), then whether there is an actual notice or not, in the eye of of the law there is a cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sident in the United States of America, and the question that arose for determination of the learned Law Lords was whether a notice could be served out of jurisdiction to bind a foreigner, and the majority of the Law Lords held that such a notice could be served, that a return of super-tax could be called for, and in the absence of such a return the best judgment assessment could be made. Viscount Cave, L.C., dissented from the judgment and there is not much point in referring to the judgment of Viscount Cave, L.C., on this point because his view of the law did not prevail, but we do not find any discussion in this judgment drawing any distinction between an actual notice and a constructive notice. In principle there can be no difference. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
