TMI Blog1962 (12) TMI 72X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Union of India from the petitioner on account of the income-tax and penalty for the assessment years 1948-49, 1949-50, 1950-51, 1951-52 and 1952-53. Objections have been filed by the petitioner under section 9 of the Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913, against these certificates. The Certificate Officer has dismissed these objections by his order dated 5th October, 1961. The petitioner asked us to revise this order. Mr. Mitra appearing on behalf of the petitioner argued, firstly, that the assessment order of the Income-tax Officer dated December 29, 1952, is invalid and illegal, inasmuch as by that order the Income-tax Officer assessed the income for five years and the demand notice dated February 12, 1953, following upon this assessme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income for all the five years, the demand following upon it must necessarily be demand for the tax payable in respect of these five years. Besides, along with the demand notice an attached form was sent to the petitioners. Copy of the attached form has not been annexed to the petition, nor has the original attached form received by the petitioners been produced before us. The materials on the record suggest that the attached form sent to the petitioners set out separately the assessment for each year as also the tax and penalty payable in respect of each year. The petitioners really have no genuine grievance on this point. Mr. Mitra next argued that the Income-tax Officer who passed the assessment order had no jurisdiction to make the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessment. Such a conduct disentitles the petitioners from getting relief in this jurisdiction. The petitioners always submitted to the jurisdiction of this officer without any protest. In Messrs. Pannalal Binjraj v. Union of India [1957] 31 I.T.R. 565, 594; [1957] S.C.R. 233, Bhagwati J. observed: If they acquiesced in the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer to whom their cases were transferred, they were certainly not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this court under article 32. It is well settled that such conduct of the petitioners would disentitle them to any relief at the hands of this court (vide Halsbury's Laws of England, vol. II, 3rd ed., page 140, paragraph 265; Rex v. Tabrum: Ex. parte Dash [1907] 97 L.T. 551; O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
