TMI Blog1962 (12) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r 10, 1956, in allowing those appeals gave a finding that the business belonged to the partnership as claimed by Jagannath Ramkishan and the Income-tax Officer was authorised to make assessments under the provisions of section 34 on the said partnership as also on the respondent for the assessment years 1944-45, 1945-46 and 1946-47. Thereupon, a notice was issued with regard to the three assessment years on February 18, 1957, against M/s. Jagannath Fakirchand and Jagannath Ramkishan. These notices were challenged and were held to be illegal. Against that order of the High Court this appeal is brought on a certificate of the High Court under article 132(1) and article 133(1)(b) of the Constitution. Appeal dismissed. - - - - - Dated:- 12-12- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... other assessee were partners. The High Court held that the respondent was a stranger to the proceedings before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and that the second proviso to section 34(3) of the Act under which the notice was given was unconstitutional as it offended article 14 of the Constitution. The facts of the appeal are these : The respondent was the karta of a Hindu undivided family which carried on business as merchants and commission agents in cotton, grains and other commodities. That Hindu undivided family was assessed for the assessment years 1944-45, 1945-46 and 1946-47. The assessment for the year 1944-45 was completed by the Income-tax Officer on March 14, 1949, and an appeal was taken against that assessment to the Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondent's Hindu undivided family and himself. Two orders were passed by the Income-tax Officer for those years. Kalavatibai took appeals against those orders and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on October 10, 1956, in allowing those appeals gave a finding that the business belonged to the partnership as claimed by Jagannath Ramkishan and the Income-tax Officer was authorised to make assessments under the provisions of section 34 on the said partnership as also on the respondent for the assessment years 1944-45, 1945-46 and 1946-47. Thereupon, a notice was issued with regard to the three assessment years on February 18, 1957, against M/s. Jagannath Fakirchand and Jagannath Ramkishan. These notices were challenged and were held to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alavatibai under section 34(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act and assessed her on the entire income in the aforesaid three years, realised from the said transactions. Kalavatibai then appealed from this assessment and in the appeal she contended that her husband's estate was not liable for the tax on the entire income as the income belonged to a firm of which her husband was only one of the partners. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner accepted this contention of Kalavatibai and observed : "In view of my finding ... that the business belonged to the partnership ...... the Income-tax Officer is hereby authorised to make assessments under the provisions of section 34 on the said partnership as also on the other partner, Shri Jagannath Fakirchand, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
