9911796707
TMI Blog1971 (3) TMI 7X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m. It is not in dispute that this business was carried on in land No. 48 in Sandhiyur Village, Salem Taluk. The petitioner was no doubt associated in partnership with N. Jagannathan, P. Kandasami Chettiar and M. Doraisami Chettiar. But the petitioner's case is that their trading style was different from the one adopted by the firm against which the revenue initiated proceedings to assess the firm for the first time for the year 1946-47. What happened was that, during the year of assessment, the Standard Starch Manufacturing Company or the Standard Starch Products Company doing business at the place, which is admittedly localised in this case, did not submit their returns in accordance with law for being assessed under the provisions of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Income-tax Act, 1961, was issued to the persons concerned, including the petitioner, calling upon them to pay Rs. 7,026.13 after deducting a sum of Rs. 7.75 alleged to have been collected. The petitioner obviously resisted the claim. But, it is common ground that he appeared on summons being served on him under section 131 of the Income-tax Act and that the Income-tax Officer, who examined one of the partners of the unregistered firm by name, Mr. Jagannathan, gave an opportunity to the petitioner to state his case and cross-examined Mr. Jagannathan as well. In the statement given by Mr. jagannathan and also in his deposition, he has stated that the trading style of the unregistered firm is Standard Starch Products Company and not Standa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cise the power which he has assumed and pursuing the process further by affecting the rights of third parties and acting to their prejudice. The essential pre-requisite, therefore, is the complete absence of jurisdiction on the part of the Tribunal whose order is sought to be challenged under article 226 of the Constitution. It should be found as a fact and beyond doubt that, on the materials placed before the court, no reasonable person will assume that the statutory tribunal has ever the authority to assume such power and act in the manner contemplated. In the instant case, the undisputed facts are that the business was carried on by the petitioners along with three others, including Mr. Jagannathan, under an oral partnership at No. 48 i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lerical error, I am of the view that there is no ambiguity in bringing home the order of assessment to the petitioner and his partners who did associate themselves in commercial activity in the year in question and earned income. The oral partnership was recorded in writing, but not in proper form. It is evidenced by an improvised and inchoate document which can only be looked into for the purpose of examining the bona fides and genuineness of the claim of the petitioner. This record is dated January 19, 1945, and it categorically mentions the name of the petitioner as a partner of the Standard Starch Products Company. I am, therefore, unable to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the assessment proceedings followed up by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
