9911796707
TMI Blog1971 (7) TMI 25X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 17(4), Madras Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955. The original order is dated April 13, 1961. It appears that proceedings were taken under section 35 of the Act and the case of the petitioner is that no notice under section 35 was issued to him by the appropriate authority and such a notice, even if it emanated from the statutory authority, was not served on him or acknowledged by him. The pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ever, relied upon the signature of the petitioner in a blank form of a notice captioned to be one generally issued in proceedings under section 35 of the Act. The records have been brought on the rule nisi and I perused the same, and in particular scrutinised the so-called notice issued by the department to the petitioner under section 35 of the Act. The notice is a printed form which is generally ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d on such an inchoate and irregular notice under section 35 does not make any difference at all. But, this enquiry was made much of by the Commissioner when he observed that the revision-petitioner did appear before the officer on July 8, 1963, and participated in the proceedings taken under section 35. The error apparent lies in the fact that the Commissioner thought and presumed that the Agricul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to agree with the conclusion of the Commissioner that there was proper and sufficient service of notice within the meaning of the provisions of the Act. As already stated it is not necessary for me to consider the merits as they were not fully appreciated by the Commissioner himself when he heard the revision petition and ultimately dismissed it. As I am satisfied that the petitioner was not pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
