9911796707
TMI Blog1962 (3) TMI 127X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... years the Income-tax Officer issued a notice under section 22(2) to the Hindu undivided family and in response to them two returns were filed in each of the two years; no notice under section 22(2) was issued to Raghunath Prasad Tandon as an individual, and this was because previously the Income-tax Officer had been issuing a notice under section 22(2) only to the Hindu undivided family and not to the individual. For the assessment year 1951-52, one return was filed by the Hindu undivided family represented by Raghunath Prasad Tandon on August 16, 1951, and the other by himself as an individual on September 29, 1955. The former was filed under section 22(2) and the latter could be a return under section 22(3), because prior to that date no assessment order had been passed against the individual and no notice under section 22 had been had been issued against him. In the return filed by the individual the only income shown was of ₹ 12,000 received by him as salary from the firm and this amount was not included in the income of the Hindu undivided family in the return filed on its behalf. For the assessment year 1952-53 also two returns were filed, one on September 15, 1952, by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. At the assessees instance the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the question, set out above, for answer by this court. The notice that was issued by the Income-tax Officer of May 31, 1957, was certainly not a notice issued under section 34(1)(a). As the assessee had filed returns in respect of the incomes on which he has now been assessed, the notices could not have been issued under that provision, and this was conceded by Sri Gopal Behari on behalf of the department. It was contended by Sri G. P. Bhargava that the notices were not issued also under section 34(1)(b) because they were not based on any information which was not in the Income-tax Officers possession previously. The provision is to the effect that if..... notwithstanding that there has been no omission or failure as mentioned in clause (a) on the part of the assessee, the Income-tax Officer has in consequence of information in his possession reason to believe that income...... chargeable to income-tax have escaped assessment for any year, ... he may in cases falling under ..... clause (b) at any time within four years of the end o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt on account of the Appellate Assistant Commissioners having reduced the assessable income of the Hindu undivided family. The income escaped assessment in consequence of the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and it was only after the order was passed that the Income-tax Officer could possibly have any information about the escape. There is, therefore, no substance in the contention that the Income-tax Officer had no information in his possession on September 9, 1957, which had not been in his possession on September 30, 1955. He had full jurisdiction to serve on the assessee at any time within four years of the end of the assessment years a notice and proceed to assess him. Four years from the end of the two assessment years ended on March 31, 1956, and March 31, 1957. The notices issued by the Income-tax Officer on him on May 31, 1957, were, therefore, after the expiry of four years from the end of the assessment years. Section 34(3) requires that no order of assessment (barring certain orders of reassessment with which we are not concerned) can be made after the expiry of four years from the end of the assessment year. Both the assessment orders passed on September 9 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Income-tax Officer to make a fresh assessment. He is not required by any provision to dispose of an appeal within four years of the end of the assessment year. His power to direct a fresh assessment is general, capable of being exercised in every appeal. Since he may dispose of an appeal after the expiry of four years from the end of the assessment year, it follows that he had the power to give the direction even if four years had expired. The second proviso to section 34(3) does not contain anything to suggest that the order under section 31 must have been passed within four years of the end of the assessment year. The proviso is general and applies whenever an assessment is to be made in consequence of, or to give effect to, any finding or direction contained in an order under section 31 regardless of whether it was passed before or after the expiry of four years from the end of the assessment year. It is not within the province of the court to read in the proviso a qualification that the order must have been made within four years. We further find that the assessee submitted himself to the direction contained in the Appellate Assistant Commissioners order that the income in q ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
