TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1985 (12) TMI 105
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....judice to the earlier grounds, the ld. AAC failed to appreciate that with chemical treatment it is possible to erase even ink and the notice in WTO's file bear his initials." The order contested is dt.5th Jan., 1984common for both the years. The assessments were framed on18th March 1983. 2. In the original assessments framed under s. 16(3) of the WT Act on29th March, 1972, the taxable wealth was computed at Rs. 5,22,281 and Rs. 5,40,476 respectively. Later the assessment was revised under s. 35 of the Act on13th Aug., 1974for the asst. yr. 1970-71 and assessee's claim of exemption in respect of units of Unit Trust of India amounting to Rs. 25,000 was withdrawn. The result was re-computation of wealth at Rs. 6,47,281. On5th Aug., 1975s. 35....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6 (4) of the Act was issued on 3rd Nov., 1982 and served on the next day, i.e. 4th Nov., 1982, but the assessee instead of filing return objected to the re-assessments proceedings vide letter dt.15th Dec., 1982on the ground that the assessee had received an unsigned notice, which was illegal and proceedings, therefore, void-ab initio. A copy of the assessee's letter is on the Revenue record. 5. The WTO apparently placing reliance on the copy of the notice under s. 17 which was on the record and on which the assessee had signed, completed best judgment assessment under s. 16 (5) of the Act on 18th March, 1983, in which the assessable wealth came to be computed at Rs. 11,10,800. 6. The assessee filed appeal before the first appellate author....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ative accepted what in respect of the letter two years there was no infirmity at all inasmuch as the assessee's copies also had the signature of the WTO. In the present case all the four year's notices signed by the WTO were duly served on the assessee and we have perused such notices ourselves. We fail to understand as to how the re-assessment proceedings could be held to be invalid as done by the ld. AAC on the ground that notices in possession of the assessee for the two years did not have the WTO's initials. Apparently, the ld. AAC confused the issue with regard to notices received and notices served. In this case, the notices which were served mattered and not notices which could be copies of original in the possession of the assessee.....