9911796707
TMI Blog1978 (8) TMI 76X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ries on the business of printing press at Lucknow. For the assessment year 1961-62, the assessees filed a return. The ITO, however, completed the assessment to the best of his judgment. Subsequently, the ITO felt that some income had escaped assessment. He issued a notice under s. 148 on July 2, 1966. He again issued a notice under s. 143(2) on April 13, 1967, requiring the assessee to attend in o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 30, 1968, does not automatically become illegal or infructuous. It can be looked into and the ITO had jurisdiction to complete the proceedings for reassessment on its basis which were initiated by the notice dated July 2, 1966. Since the order dated December 2, 1968, was within time from the date of the notice dated July 2, 1966, the same was valid. The illegality of the second notice of August 30 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould form the basis of the impugned assessment ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal could hold that the return filed pursuant to the notice under s. 148 dated August 30, 1968, was filed under s. 139(4) ? 4. Whether the impugned assessment can be upheld on the basis of the return which the assessee had filed pursuant to the notice under s. 148 dated Ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... within time computed from the date of the notice of July 2, 1966. Learned counsel for the assessee stressed that in the assessment order, the ITO has heavily relied upon the statement of facts made by the assessee in the return filed in pursuance of the notice dated August 30, 1968. This shows that the ITO in fact passed the assessment order on the basis of that return. There is no specific ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gal. The assessment order was not without jurisdiction. It was not liable to be annulled simply because the ITO had utilised some information which was given in the return filed in consequence of the illegal notice of August 30, 1968. We agree with the Tribunal that the assessment order was not invalid. We, therefore, answer questions Nos. 1, 2 and 4, in the affirmative, in favour of the depart ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
