9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (11) TMI 99X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssued in the name of the assessee. The finding of the Tribunal on this issue is legally correct. – Held that proceedings had been validly initiated under section 148 X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 107 (Cal) In support of the submission that the notice was validly issued in the name of the assessee, learned standing counsel for the Department has placed reliance on the following two cases: (1) CIT v. S. Raman Chettiar [1965] 55 ITR 630 (SC); and (2) Mulchand Rampuria v. ITO [2001] 252 ITR 758 (Cal). There is no dispute vis-a-vis the status of the assessee. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were validly initiated. We have given careful consideration to the respective submissions of the counsel for the parties. The Tribunal has quoted certain portions from the partnership deed of the assessee. It is apt to quote them here also as it has some relevancy to the controversy involved in the present case: "And whereas the aforesai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment order would depend upon the issuance of a valid notice. If the notice issued by him is invalid for any reason then the entire proceedings that would be taken by him pursuant to such notice would be void for want of jurisdiction. A close analysis of the facts of Chandi Prasad Modi's case [1979] 119 ITR 340 (Cal) shows that the Department had accepted the partial partition of the Hindu undivided family. The business was being carried on by the Hindu undivided family and there was also a registered partnership firm under identical names of which the Department had the knowledge. In view of these facts it was held that at the relevant time there were two concerns of the same name and at the same address. The Income-tax Officer had fu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o distinguishable as there is no dispute vis-a-vis the status of the assessee. On the same parity of reasoning the case of CIT v. Bibhuti Bhusan Mallick [1987] 165 ITR 107 (Cal) is also not applicable. The assessee, Bibhuti Bhushan Mallick was assessed as a Hindu undivided family. The notice was issued to reopen the assessment in the name of Panchanan Mallick and Bibhuti Bhusan Mallick.
In view of the foregoing discussion, we find that the notice was validly issued in the name of the assessee. The finding of the Tribunal on this issue is legally correct. We answer the question of law referred to us in the affirmative i.e., against the assessee and in favour of the Department. However, there shall be no order as to costs. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
