9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (11) TMI 99X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1-72 is involved in the present reference. A notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act was issued to the assessee which was a branch of M/s. Gopi Krishna & Co. The validity of the notice was unsuccessfully challenged before the Income-tax Officer. The case of the assessee was that the notice was not issued in the correct name. It was issued in the name of Hari Prasad Govind Krishna, which is a branch of M/s. Gopi Krishna & Co. The notice should have been issued in the name of the head office, i.e., Gopi Krishna & Co. However, the said plea of the assessee found favour with the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax. The Tribunal has reversed the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and found that the notice was correct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e controversy involved in the present case: "And whereas the aforesaid first, second and third parties agreed amongst themselves to carry on the business in gold ornaments and silver bullion with effect from Dashehra St, 2026 under the name and style of M/s. Gopi Krishna & Company, Hindi Bazar, Gorakhpur and M/s. Hari Prasad Gopi Krishna, Hindi Bazar, Gorakhpur (for gold ornament business) on various terms and conditions which are necessary to be reduced into writing so that there may not arise any dispute in future." The partnership deed itself states the two names of the assessee as mentioned above. It also appears that the name of Hari Prasad Gopi Krishna was for gold ornaments business. In this factual background the Tribunal has reco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the same name and at the same address. The Income-tax Officer had full knowledge of the separate identity of the two concerns. But in spite of it there was neither anything in the notice nor otherwise to show to which of the two concerns, the partnership firm or the Hindu undivided family the notice was directed. On these facts the notice was held to be illegal. The said proposition of law has no application in the present case inasmuch as here the assessee is one person and carrying on one business in two names. Also there is no dispute with regard to the status of the assessee. For the same reasons Madanlal Chowdhury v. ITO [1979] 119 ITR 351 (Cal) (Appex.) is also distinguishable. The case of Madan Lal Agarwal v. CIT [1983] 144 ITR 7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
