9911796707
TMI Blog1978 (1) TMI 47X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are 1966-67, 1967-68 and 1968-69. Until January 9, 1966, there were eight partners in that firm by name Mr. S.B.P. Rebello and his wife, Mrs. E.A. Rebello, Mr. J.M.J. Rebello and his wife, Mrs. R. Rebello,Mr. E.L.J. Rebello and his wife, C.M. Rebello, Mr. R.F.A. Rebello and Mr. R.T.A. Rebello. Mr. R.T.A. Rebello was the managing partner of that firm. Mr. J. M. J. Rebello died on January 9, 1966. With effect from January 10, 1966, there were ten members in the firm consisting of seven surviving members of the firm and three minors who were admitted to the benefits of the partnership. The assessment of the firm as well as its members in respect of the years 1966-67, 1967-68 and 1968-69, were completed by the Agrl. ITO, Chickmagalur. On a scr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich were dated 21 st December, 1972, and which called upon them to appear before the Commissioner on January 6, 1973, were received by all the individuals to whom they were addressed. Each one of them wrote a letter dated December 30, 1972, to the Commr. of Agrl. IT requesting him to adjourn the case to a date in February, 1973. On January 8, 1973, the Commissioner sent fresh notices to all of them informing them that the cases had been adjourned to January 22, 1973. These notices also were served on all the individuals concerned. Here again, it should be mentioned that the notices were addressed to Mr. R.T.A. Rebello and copies of the same were sent to five other persons referred to above. On January 12, 1973, Mr. R.T.A. Rebello apparently ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tly addressed to the individuals assessees concerned but addressed to Mr. R.T.A. Rebello, managing partner of the firm, and copies to them, the order passed by the Commissioner were unsustainable in law. In support of the above contention, reliance was placed by Sri S.P. Bhat on the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Kurban Hussain Ibrahimji Mithiborwala [1971] 82 ITR 821, which was a case in which s. 34 of the I.T. Act, 1922, arose for consideration. In that case, the ITO having issued a notice stating that he had reason to believe that the income of the assessee for the year ending 31st March, 1949, had escaped assessment, proceeded to make a reassessment in respect of the income of the assessment year ending 31st March, 1950. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laced before us, we are satisfied that the petitioners, in these cases had been given reasonable opportunity by the Commissioner before he passed his orders under s. 35 of the Act. If they have not availed of that opportunity, they will have to blame themselves. We are satisfied that the petitioners were not at all taken by surprise because the notices clearly set out the reasons for issuing them and the proposed action. The fact that the notices were addressed to the managing partner of the firm and copies of them were sent to the petitioners is not sufficient to hold that the petitioners had been denied reasonable opportunity on the facts and circumstances of these cases. We are, therefore, of the opinion that both the questions of law ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
