TMI Blog1982 (9) TMI 26X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... escribed form of your income...... in respect of which you are assessable for the said assessment year. 2. This notice is being issued after obtaining the necessary satisfaction of the Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P., Lucknow/the Central Board of Revenue. (Sd.)J. S. Agarwal, Income-tax Officer, B-Ward, Aligarh. " On receipt of the notice, Sri Madan Lal Agarwal, on November 12, 1962, filed a return of his individual income pertaining to the assessment year 1946-47, under protest. The ITO thereupon informed Sri Madan Lal Agarwal that the notice dated 29th September, 1962, related to his HUF and that he should, instead of the return of his individual income, file the return of the income of his HUF. At a later stage the proceedings were, under the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax, transferred to ITO, Special Survey Circle, Agra, who on 30th March, 1967, framed an assessment order determining the taxable income of the HUF for the assessment year 1946-47 as Rs. 3,87,763. However, as, before framing the assessment, the ITO, Special Survey Circle, Agra, did not give any notice or fresh opportunity to the assessee, the AAC, by his order dated 30th July, 1974, allowe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngs initiated under section 147(a) and not under section 147(b) ? 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessment and the proceedings purporting to be under section 147(a) are without jurisdiction ? 5. Whether the Tribunal's decision regarding the validity of the proceedings under section 147(a) in the present case is vitiated by irrelevant and inadmissible material and failure to consider the relevant material ? 6. Whether there is material for the Tribunal's conclusions that, (a) the alleged 'HUF existed in the relevant assessment year and had joint nucleus', and (b) there existed an honest belief and material for the belief that the alleged income assessable in the hands of the HUF had escaped assessment in the present case ? 7. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the present assessment and the relevant proceedings are illegal and void on ground of double assessment of the same income and/or the option to assess the same income in the hands of individual having been already exercised by the Department ? 8. Whether the Tribunal has acted contrary to law and principles of natural justice in proceeding to decide t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n are: (1) whether the notice dated 29th September, 1962, issued under section 148 suffers from the vice of vagueness; and (2) whether the said notice can, after subsequently removing the vagueness, be relied upon for sustaining an assessment under s. 147 of the I.T. Act. Revenue's case is that the notice dated 29th September, 1962, was intended to be issued to Sri Madan Lal Agarwal in the status of an HUF. A perusal of the notice which has already been quoted above does not give any indication that it was addressed to Madan Lal Agarwal in his capacity as representing an HUF, which for purposes of the I.T. Act is an entity different from Madan Lal Agarwal-individual. On the face of it the notice purports to inform Madan Lal Agarwal that the ITO had reasons to believe that his income for the assessment year 1946-47 had escaped assessment and that he should file a return of his income for that year for which he was assessable. Prima facie the said notice could be interpreted by Sri Madan Lal Agarwal as having been issued to him as an individual. As it is the Revenue's own case that the notice was intended to be issued to Madan Lal Agarwal in the status of HUF, the said notice eith ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase [1969] 72 ITR 197, was that the facts of that case revealed that even though there was some negligence in drafting the preamble of the notice it did not affect its validity because the notice itself clearly informed the assessee that he had to file a return of income assessable for the year ending 31st March, 1946. The learned judges further opined that the said Supreme Court decision could not be treated as an authority for the proposition that if a statutory notice under s. 34 of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922 and/or under s. 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961, is ambiguous or defective or is otherwise invalid, the same can be cured by taking into account other documents whereby such defects can be rectified and/or the omissions can be filled in. Eventually the learned judges repelled the plea of the Revenue and held the vague notice to be invalid and did not permit the vagueness therein to be removed with reference to other documents on the record. Again in the case of Bhagwan Devi Saraogi v. ITO [1979] 118 ITR 906, a single judge of the Calcutta High Court following the dictum laid down in Rama Devi Agarwalla's case [1979] 117 ITR 256 (Cal), observed that if the notice itself is otherw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , to be cured by something that was contained in collateral document, namely, the notice under s. 22 of the 1922 Act, as also by taking into account the fact that the assessee had in fact not been prejudiced as he had filed the return of his income for the year for which he was actually sought to be assessed. In this view of the matter, it will not be possible, as claimed by the Revenue, to hold that the defect in the notice dated September 29, 1962, stood rectified merely because subsequently the ITO required the assessee to file the return in his capacity of an HUF instead of that of an individual. The entire proceedings, therefore, initiated on the basis of such a notice stood vitiated. Learned counsel for the Revenue placed reliance on three decisions of this court in the cases of Gopaldas Parshottamdas v. CIT [1941] 9 ITR 130 (All), Radhey Lal Balmukand, In re [1942] 10 ITR 131 (All) and Mohd. Haneef v. CIT [1955] 27 ITR 447 (All). So far as the cases of Gopaldas Parshottamdas v. CIT and Radhey Lal Balmukand, In re, are concerned, they pertain to the notice for original assessment issued by the I.T. authorities under s. 22 of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922. In these cases it has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
