9911796707
TMI Blog1927 (9) TMI 3X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncome Tax, who, in fact, made the reference. We stated that in 'order to determine whether the objection was valid, we would have to consider the facts in both cases. 2. With regard to the first reference, the firm carried on business at Paungde and Thegon in Prome District. They made a return on the prescribed form, Ex. A, under Head 5: Business, Trade, etc. Profits or income in money-l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in my opinion, be considered as any return. 5. The appellant relied on P. Ramaswamiah v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras A.I.R. 1927 Mad. 49. This case cannot help him as I have not the form which the assessee filled up in that case and the Court decided that the assessment in fact had been made under Section 23(3) and not under Section 23(4). 6. For these reasons I would answer the quest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in this case is as follows: The assessees being a Hindu undivided family residing in the Madras Presidency and carrying on business in Rangoon through an agent, was the service on the agent of the notice under Section 22(2), Income Tax Act, a good service? 8. The question turns upon the construction of Section 63., Income Tax Act. That section runs as follows: 63. (1) A notice or requis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... family, and that the summons should be served in accordance with Section 28, Civil P.C., and Order 5, Rule 21. 10. In my opinion the Commissioner's view is correct. If it had been the intention of the legislature to have prescribed Section 63(2) as the only method by which a joint Hindu family could be served, they would not in my opinion have used the word may but the mandatory word sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
