9911796707
TMI Blog1970 (3) TMI 18X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 961, was served on Murari Lal, a former partner of the firm. The Income-tax Officer made an assessment order dated March 10, 1969, under section 147 of the Act of 1961, computing the total income at Rs. 71,072. Aggrieved by the assessment order the petitioner has filed this petition under article 226 of the Constitution. Sri S. B. L. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the assessment proceeding lay under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and not under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961. He urges that inasmuch as the income said to have been concealed by the petitioner was less than Rs. 1,00,000, the period of limitation governing the issue of a notice under section 34(1) for taking reassessment proceedings ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent proceeding before us. From the report of the Income-tax Officer recording the reasons, on the basis of which he obtained the sanction of the Central Board of Direct Taxes, it seems to us impossible to hold that lie considered that the concealed income exceeded Rs. 1,00,000. The reasons recorded are : " Assessment for 1953-54 was completed on an income of Rs. 10,303. The account books for this period were seized by the sales tax department. These books reveal a profit of Rs. 39,242. There thus is a concealment of about Rs. 29,000 as per books. In addition to this the accounts of the partners on the opening day show credit balance of Rs. 1,91,933 in seized books as against Rs. 75,179 shown in the books produced at the time of assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... available to the petitioner by way of appeal under the statute and that the petitioner should be compelled to have recourse to that remedy. Indeed, it is pointed out, the petitioner has actually preferred an appeal against the assessment order and that the appeal is pending. It seems to us that when on the plain facts of the case it appears ex facie that the Income-tax Officer had no jurisdiction, it is not necessary that the petitioner should be compelled to take recourse to an alternative remedy. We are of opinion that, having regard to the particular facts of this case, the existence of a remedy by way of appeal, even though resort has been had to it, should not preclude the grant of relief upon this petition. The objection of the respo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
