9911796707
TMI Blog1977 (11) TMI 32X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... year is the year 1945. The assessee is a HUF doing business in petrol and textiles. One Shrikrishna Baijnath, who died in 1933, left behind him three sons, Madhavprasad, Jagmohan and Kunjbehari. Shrikrishna started a business in petrol under the name of Madhav Motor Stores. The income from this business was assessed in the status of HUF. Another business called Ruia Textiles Company was started after his death in or about 1939. Similarly, two other businesses in the names of textile agents and chemical agents were also started in 1941 and 1942, respectively. On 15th December, 1941, the three brothers entered into an agreement in which it is stated that they had effected a severance amongst themselves from January 1, 1940. The agreement was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th which we are concerned, viz., 1946-47, the office copy of the notice under s. 34(1A) is not on record. The notices for the remaining years 1943-44 to 1945-46 were identical in form with the notice for the assessment year 1942-43 at annexure D. These notices were accepted on behalf of M/s. Madhav Motor Stores by one M. Kamat for partner. Returns for all these years were filed on the same day, i.e., 25th April, 1955. No objection was taken at that time either regarding the alleged omission to serve the notice or to the issue or service of the notice in a particular form. The assessment was accordingly completed by the ITO. In appeal to the AAC, the point about alleged omission of service or invalidity of service was not raised. As the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee raised a ground about alleged absence of service of notice on the assessee for the assessment year in question. As far as ground No. 3 by the assessee, which was extracted in its entirety above, not much discussion is to be found in the order of the Tribunal pertaining to the assessment year 1946-47, and there is merely a cryptic observation in the opening paragraph of the said order that this point is common to all the assessment years and has been disposed of and decided against the assessee in the Tribunal's order in I.T.A. No. 9499 of 1958-59 for the assessment year 1942-43. The second paragraph of the order of the Tribunal goes on to deal with the assessee's second contention, which was peculiar to this year, viz., that no not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Supreme Court in CIT v. K. Adinarayana Murthy [1967] 65 ITR 607 at page 611. Following that decision, it was held that the notices having been issued to the assessee in the status of a firm the reassessment of the assessee in their status as an HUF in pursuance of those notices was invalid. Mr. Joshi submitted in the first instance that the same result ought not to follow for the assessment year 1946-47, inasmuch as it was the assessee's contention that no notice was issued. That argument, we are afraid, is not open to him. The Tribunal rejected that contention, which must mean that the notice was issued to the assessee. The Tribunal rejected the assessee's contention as to the validity of service of this notice for the identical reason ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
