9911796707
TMI Blog1978 (9) TMI 29X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r reassessment after obtaining the sanction of the CBDT. The assessment, which was sought to be reopened, related to the assessment year 1951-52, and the period of 16 years was to expire on March 31, 1968. The notices for reassessment under ss. 147/148 of the I.T. Act, 1961, were issued on March 28, 1968, and one set of such notices was sent through an inspector of the I.T. department, while another set of notices was sent by registered post. So far as the notices sent through the inspector of the I.T. department are concerned, a report was submitted by the inspector that the whereabouts of the assessee-firm were not traceable and he affixed the copies of the notices on the outer doors of the residential houses of the partners, namely, Hari ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... artners of the assessee-firm, within the time permissible under the law, in respect of the reassessment proceedings. The assessee-firm submitted an application to the Tribunal under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act and requested it to refer three questions to this court. The Tribunal declined to make a reference and rejected the application of the assessee by its order dated August 28, 1972, on the ground that in view of the order of remand passed by the Tribunal, it was premature at this stage to make any reference to this court. We have heard the learned counsel for the assessee and the learned counsel representing the revenue. The question, which is raised at present, related to the service of notices regarding the initiation of reassessm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssment are initiated merely by issuance of notices before the time-barring date or the requirement of law is that the notices should not only be issued but they should also be served before the said date. We may also like to point out in this connection that the Punjab High Court whose decision in Seth Balkishan Das v. CIT [1966] 61 ITR 194 [FB] was sought to be relied upon by the Tribunal, has itself in a later decision in Tikka Khushwant Singh v. CIT [1975] 101 ITR 106 (Punj), distinguished its earlier judgment in Seth Balkishan Das's case [1966] 61 ITR 194 [FB], and held that the matter in the earlier case before the Full Bench was absolutely different. The Punjab High Court in Tikka Khushwant's case [1975] 101 ITR 106, has held that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
