9911796707
TMI Blog1929 (4) TMI 4X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be the head. He was called upon by the Income Tax Officer to furnish a return of the income by a notice which was served on Lala Kalyanmal on 13th April 1928. The notice was under Section 22(2) of the Act and called upon the proposed assessee to make his return of income by 12th May 1928. It will be noticed here, for this is a very important matter, that the proposed assessee had only 29 days wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n was disallowed and on 2nd June 1928, an assessment to the best of the judgment was made by the Income Tax Officer under provisions of Section 23(4) of the Act. 3. Lala Kalyanmal thereupon made an application to the Income Tax Officer to give him a fresh opportunity to file his return. His application was made under Section 27 of the Act. It was rejected by the Income Tax Officer and an appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. As regards this point, the Commissioner was of opinion that it was a question of fact and not a question of law. Having, however, said so much, the learned Commissioner formulated the following question for determination by this Court: Was the assessee prevented by sufficient cause from making the return required by Section 22? 5. The question as framed by the learned Commissioner is a m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al question of law raised in the statement of the case. 7. We have already held, in another case, that it is open to the High Court to formulate questions of law that really arise in a case and to answer them for the benefit of the Commissioner and the parties. The substantial question of law that arises in this case is whether the notice that was issued to Kalyanmal under Section 22(2) of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
