9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (1) TMI 143X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a), whereby he fixed the business income at Rs. 7,65,260. 3. There was a search conducted on 16th Dec., 1986 during the course of which certain incriminating papers were found in the assessee's place. The incriminating documents were mainly taken into consideration while estimating the business income of the firm. Inasmuch as the assessee had not responded to any of the notices it was treated as URF in the assessment. 4. The assessee had appealed and various contentions had been taken before the CIT(A) to attack the assessment. The Commissioner(A) upheld the assessment but granted relief only in regard to interest charged under s. 139(8) and s. 217 in view of the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Charles D'Souza vs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ilure to file a return, we only refer to that part of s. 147(a) relevant to the present discussion. When the ITO has reason to believe that on account of omission or failure on the part of the assessee to make a return, he may proceed to assess under s. 147(a). But before making an assessment the ITO has to issue a notice a contemplated under s. 148(1). Sec. 148(2) prescribes that before issuing a notice under s. 148(1), the ITO should record his reasons for doing so. It was disputed by the assessee that the Assessing Officer had recorded reasons of his belief before issuing a notice under s. 148(1). At the hearing, we called upon the learned Dept. Representative to furnish a copy of the record made by the Assessing Officer as per s. 148(2) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irst notice should be taken for consideration for the purpose of limitation. It was also contended that if the Revenue had in fact issued a notice dt. 15th Feb., 1982 under s. 148(1) for asst. yr. 1981-82 then the legal consequences that automatically follow are not arrested or effaced merely because the ITO repeats the formality of issuing a notice twice over. The question that naturally arises of reconsideration is whether the Assessing Officer has issued a notice dt. 15th Oct., 1982, as stated by the assessee. 10. According to assessee, the notice under s. 148(1) has been received much earlier to 15th Oct., 1982. The notice was not produced. But the assessee has an explanation here. According to assessee, many valuable papers includin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (1)Dt. 12th March, 1984 issued by me for the asst. yr. 1980-81 calling for the production of certain documents on 22nd March, 1984 but the assessment year was wrongly mentioned as asst. yr. 1981-82. The date of issue and service of notice under s. 148 incorporated in this notice are relevant for the asst. yr. 1980-81 only". The question is whether the notice dt. 12th March, 1984 issued under s. 142(1)fixing the hearing on 22nd March, 1984 made a wrong reference to assessment y ear as "1981-82" instead of "1980-81" The question is whether the notice dt. 12th March, 1984 issued under s. 142(1) fixing the hearing on 22nd March, 1984 made a wrong reference to assessment year as "1981-82" instead of "1980-81". 12. The Revenue produced a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
