9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (7) TMI 114X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m the Internal Audit section of the department leading to a belief that the income has escaped assessment. He, therefore, reopened the surtax assessment made for the year under appeal, under section 8(b) of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 ('the Act'). The assessment was made under section 6(2) of the Act, wherein the ITO reduced for the purposes of capital computation a proportionate amou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed, the reassessment was ab initio void and liable to be set aside. 4. After hearing the parties we would decide the appeal mainly on the last ground relating to the service of the notice. In view of our decision on this point, the other grounds require no decision. 5. The original assessment was completed on 30-11-1971. Evidence on record shows that a notice for reopening was issued on 30-3-1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... equired was only issuance of the notice and not service thereof. 6. Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the 1961 Act'), provides for service of a notice on the assessee. The time-limit for notice obtains in section 149 of the 1961 Act which provides that no notice under section 148 shall be issued after the prescribed time-limit. The time-limit for taking action for reassessment under the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cluded in a notice under section 5, and may proceed to assess or reassess the amount chargeable to surtax, and the provisions of this Act shall, so far as may be, apply as if the notice were a notice issued under that section." [Emphasis supplied by us]. It would be clear that section 8(b), which provides the limitation for reassessment proceedings, is similar to section 148 and not section 149. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Under the Act, therefore, the limitation is to be spelt out from service of the notice rather than issuance of the same. Though the notice has been issued in this case on 30-3-1974, it was served only after the due date, viz., 31-3-1974. The notice, therefore, must be held to have been not validly served and the reassessment made on the basis of such a notice should be cancelled. 7. In view of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
