9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (3) TMI 53X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the Tribunal in favour of the assessee for annulling the assessment – it cannot be said that the assessment made is without jurisdiction. It was a clear case of mistake which was rectified to the full knowledge of the assessee to which they themselves replied and submitted to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer pursuant to proper notice issued under section 148 – contention of assessee not acceptable – case is decided in favour of revenue - - - - - Dated:- 22-3-2005 - Judge(s) : A. M. SAPRE., ASHOK KUMAR TIWARI. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by A.M. Sapre J.-This is an income-tax reference made at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to this cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith Ku. V. Mandlik, learned counsel for the applicant/Revenue and Shri S.C. Bagadia, learned senior counsel with Shri D.K. Chhabra, learned counsel for the non-applicant/assessee. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record of the case, we answer the questions referred to this court in favour of the Commissioner of Income-tax and against the assessee. Indeed, the following statement of fact itself would demonstrate that the assessee has no case: "After dropping the proceedings, the same Assessing Officer recorded the reasons for reopening the assessment in the hands of the 'HUF' on the same day and issued a fresh notice under section 148 to the assessee in the status of 'HUF' on November 22,1990. This no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Adinarayana Murty [1967] 65 ITR 607 (SC), Sewlal Daga v. CIT [1965] 55 ITR 406 (Cal), ITO v. Chandi Prasad Modi [1979] 119 ITR 340 (Cal) and Smt. Harbans Kaur v. ITO [1993] 204 ITR 685 (P H) and contended that when the two capacities, namely,- individual and Hindu undivided family are different under the Income-tax Act, the notice sent to one capacity cannot be used for other. There can be no quarrel with this proposition of law. However, in the facts of this case, such does not appear to be a case. It is clear when one reads the statement of case and the portion of which is quoted supra. We, therefore, cannot accept this submission as it is distinguishable on facts. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the questions referred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
