9911796707
TMI Blog1958 (9) TMI 95X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irectly by a decision of this court in Ranchhoddas Karsondas v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1954] 26 ITR 105, and also in Harakchand Makanji Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1948] 16 ITR 119 . A few facts may be stated. The assessee is a firm and on the 17th March, 1952, it made a return for the assessment year 1947-48 declaring a loss of ₹ 74,140. It is common ground that no notice u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Officer that the return had been filed under a notice issued under section 34. The assessee's contention was that it had filed a voluntary return on the 17th March, 1952, that there was a valid return under section 22(3), and as such the order of the Income-tax Officer passed under section 34 is invalid and bad in law. The Tribunal rejected the contention of the assessee. Now, it is difficu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ciple that we laid down in that case. As Mr. Kolah has pointed out to us, it may be vital for an assessee to have his loss assessed. In this case the assessee had also applied for registration and if the firm had been registered the losses assessed could have been allocated to each of the partners according to his share and the partner in his own individual assessment could have claimed a set off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s case he actually issued a notice under section 23(2) after the return had been made. Mr. Joshi is not in a position to distinguish Ranchhod's case (supra) but he put forward a rather amazing argument that because he wants to appeal to the Supreme Court he wants to satisfy us that the judgment is erroneous because a certain aspect of the matter was not considered by us. Now, we have often ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
