Case Laws |
Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1963 1963 (5) This
|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 42 of 42 Records
-
1963 (5) TMI 2
Whether any proceedings for recovery of tax, lay against the successor to the assessee receivers, in the absence of any assessment on the owners of the firm?
Held that:- Bibhuti Bhusan Sen as one of the receivers was an assessee on whom assessment was made with respect to the income of the firm for the years 1945-46, 1950-51, 1951-52 and 1952-53. These are the assessments in respect of which the appellant now wishes to take proceedings for recovery of tax. As Bibhuti Bhusan Sen was an assessee on whom the assessments had been made, no question of any substitution of a receiver subsequently appointed arises now and it is unnecessary to consider the effect of sub-section (2) of section 41 of the Indian Income-tax Act. We accordingly allow the appeals and grant permission to the appellant to proceed against Bibhuti Bhusan Sen as receiver of the assets of the firm, Messrs. Sen Brothers and Co.
-
1963 (5) TMI 1
Evidence - Inference of facts - Clandestine removal ... ... ... ... ..... er or officers or the persons on whose report the action against the firm had been taken. But it appears from paragraph 5(d) of the affidavit-in-opposition in this Rule that At the time of the said hearing, the petitioner and/or its said lawyer did not press for the examination of any officer or persons of the Department. The Charges against the Petitioner had been framed on the basis of the Petitioner s own records viz. Duplicate Press Book, Bill Book and the Wage Register and as such, the question of cross-examination of any witness did not arise. 13.If ultimately the Petitioner firm itself gave up the prayer for examination of witness at the enquiry, it cannot be now allowed to make the grievance that the witnesses, whom the petitioner firm wanted to cross examine, were not produced and as such the adjudication proceeding was bad. 14.For the reasons aforesaid I find no substance in this Rule. I discharge this Rule with costs hearing fee being assessed at three gold mohars.
|
|