9911796707
TMI Blog1973 (8) TMI 17X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad. However, this notice reached the petitioner on April 3, 1970. By this notice under section 148, the petitioner was called upon to make the return, if he so desired, within 30 days of the service of the notice. Being aggrieved by this notice, which, according to the petitioner, was served beyond the prescribed period, under section 148 of the Act, the petitioner has moved this court for appropriate writs, orders and directions to quash and set aside the said notice. The respondent has opposed this petition on the ground, inter alia, that the only obligation on the Income-tax Officer before assuming jurisdiction under section 147 of the Act was to issue a notice within the prescribed period, namely, four years as it was done here in the facts of the case and it was not necessary that this notice should have been served on the petitioner within that period, and if the notice is issued within the prescribed period, though served beyond the period, the Income-tax Officer would have jurisdiction to proceed with the reassessment proceedings. The next question, therefore, which arises in this petition is whether the respondent has jurisdiction to proceed with the reassessment proce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e issued under that sub-section. (2) The Income-tax Officer shall, before issuing any notice under this section, record his reasons for doing so." " 149. Time limit for notice.-(1) No notice under section 148 shall be issued,- (a) in cases falling under clause (a) of section 147- (i) for the relevant assessment year, if eight years have elapsed from the end of that year, unless the case falls under sub-clause (ii) ; (ii) for the relevant assessment year, where eight years, but not more than sixteen years, have elapsed from the end of that year, unless the income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to rupees fifty thousand or more for that year ; (b) in cases falling under clause (b) of section 147, at any time after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. (2) The provisions of sub-section (1) as to the issue of notice shall be subject to the provisions of section 151. (3) If the person on whom a notice under section 148 is to be served is a person treated as the agent of a non-resident under section 163 and the assessment, reassessment or recomputation to be made in pursuance of the notice i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, before the commencement of the amending Act the assessment, reassessment and settlement made and proceedings taken in consequence of such notice were put beyond challenge on the ground that the notices were issued or assessment etc., was made beyond the prescribed period of limitation as required under section 34(1) of the Act. In that context, Mr. Justice Subba Rao (as he then was), after referring to the well-known rule of construction of fiscal statutes, approved the decisions of the Bombay High Court and the Allahabad High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. D. V. Ghurye and in Sri Niwas v. Income-tax Officer, respectively. Mr. Justice Subba Rao, speaking for the court, observed as under : " Section 4 of the Amending Act was enacted for saving the validity of notices issued under section 34(1) of the Act. When that section used a word interpreted by courts in the context of such notices it would be reasonable to assume that the expression was designedly used in the same sense. That apart, the expressions 'issued' and 'served' are used as interchangeable terms both in dictionaries and in other statutes. The dictionary meaning of the word ' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s 147, 148 and 149 we do not think that there are any compelling reasons which may induce us to depart from the accepted meaning given to these words " served " and " issued " in the Act of 1922. It is no doubt true that the Bombay High Court in D. V. Ghurye's case and the Allahabad High Court in Sri Niwas's case were dealing with the provisions contained in section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. It is equally true that sub-section (1) of section 34 empowered the Income-tax Officer, if he had reasons to believe that income had been concealed or had escaped assessment for any other reasons, he may, after service of notice within the prescribed period, reassess the assessee concerned. But that, in our opinion, does not make any difference to the determination of the question, which has been posed before us, in respect of the assumption of the jurisdiction under section 147 and onwards of the 1961 Act. The relevant portion of section 147 of the 1961 Act provides as under : " 147. Income escaping assessment.-If- (a) the Income-tax Officer has reason to believe that... he may, subject to the provisions of sections 148 to 153, assess or reassess such income or recompute the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce ". In our opinion, therefore, these words, " service of notice " or " issuance of notice ", have no fixed connotation but are interchangeable, as held by the Supreme Court in Banarsi Debi's case. The Division Bench of this court in Induprasad Devshanker Bhatt v. J. P. Jani, Income-tax Officer, Circle IV, Ward-O, Ahmedabad, was dealing with a similar contention that the words " issue " and " service " as used in section 34 cannot be equated with each other and that the stage of issue of notice is a distinct and different stage from the stage of service of notice. Mr. Justice Bhagwati (as he than was) observed as under : " Now, it is undoubtedly true that, according to the decision of Desai C.J., as he then was, and Miabhoy J. in Madanlal Mathurdas v. Chunilal, Income-tax Officer, the words 'issue' and 'serve' as used in section 34 cannot be equated with each other and that the stage of issue of notice is a distinct and different stage from the stage of service of notice and ordinarily this decision being a decision of a Division Bench of this court would be binding upon us, but having regard to the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in Banarsi Debi v. Income-tax Officer, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
