9911796707
TMI Blog1971 (3) TMI 28X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax under section 33B was a valid and proper order ? " The assessee-firm was assessed by the Income-tax Officer as an unregistered firm for the years 1960-61 and 1961-62, respectively. The Commissioner of Income-tax, having satisfied that the assessments made were prejudicial to the interests of the revenue and that section 23(5)(b) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, was attracted, purported to take proceedings under section 33B of that Act to revise those orders. On August 6, 1962, he issued a notice under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, calling upon the assessee to appear on August 16, 1962. The notice was served on the assesses on August 9, 1962. The assessee filed a writ petition in this court and obtained an interim order on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted to serve the notice on one of the partners, Mangal Das, but he, it appears, was avoiding the service of the notice and it was served by affixation. When the proceedings were taken up by the Commissioner on August 29, 1962, one Pokar Das, representing himself to be an employee of one of the partners, attended before the Commissioner along with a letter stating that the proceedings had been stayed. A copy of the order dated August 24, 1962, was also filed. The Commissioner pointed out that that order had been modified by this court and he was entitled to complete the proceedings. He inquired of Pokar Das whether he had anything to say on the merits but it seems that Pokar Das was unable to present the assessee's case. The Commissioner, in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as if the Act of 1961 had not been passed. Learned counsel for the assessee contends that the Income-tax (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1962, is invalid in so far as it is retrospective in operation, and section 298 of the Act of 1961, under which it was purportedly made, did not confer power upon the Central Government to make an order having retrospective effect. It seems to us that the contention is without substance. Section 298 of the Act empowers the Central Government to make a general or special order to remove difficulties arising in giving effect to the provisions of the Act of 1961. It is for the removal of difficulties already arisen or apprehended in future that the power has been conferred upon the Central Government. It se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee that adequate time was not afforded to it must be rejected. Besides, the notice dated August 6, 1962, under section 263 of the Act of 1961 apprised the assessee of the contemplated proceeding as long ago as August 9, 1962. That notice must be treated as valid in view of the order dated August 8, 1962, issued under section 298 of the Act of 1961. Pursuant to that order the notice dated August 6, 1962, issued under the Act of 1961 must be deemed to have been issued under the Act of 1922. There is no dispute that the said notice was served on the assessee on August 9, 1962. It is difficult to accept the contention that the assessee did not have sufficient time for preparing its case. It is also urged that the order under section 33B is err ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
