1974 (9) TMI 16

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... m of partnership called Messrs. Pattu Padmanabha Chetti and Sons. The partnership firm was assessed to income-tax for the assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66 and income-tax to the tune of Rs. 3,43,195 was due from the partnership firm. The firm was an unregistered partnership and there is no dispute that the petitioner was a partner. This writ petition has been filed against the garnishee order i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... for proceeding against the garnishee. In fact, in Sahu Rajeshwar Nath v. Income-tax Officer, the Supreme Court considered a similar question and held that where an unregistered firm is assessed to income-tax and a notice of demand is issued against that firm, it is not necessary to serve a separate notice of demand under section 29 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, upon a partner of the firm if .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... garnishee order on a third party under section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It was contended that before a notice under section 226(3) was issued, a demand notice should have been issued on the assessee and the assessee had to be in default. Overruling this contention, the Supreme Court held that the notice issued to the third party under section 226(3) was legally and validly issued. In .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X