TMI Blog1961 (11) TMI 66X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... employment of the firm for two years ending October 18, 1952, as a salesman and as a Munim. He left the service of the firm with effect from that date and entered the employment of another concern, Messrs. Ganga Glass Works, Firozabad. Subsequently, Raj Nath carried on his own business. It is alleged that the business was of purchase of bangles in Firozabad and of sale of the same in Bangalore, Mysore and others States. The sale proceeds were collected by him and sent by bank drafts was deposited in his personal account in the Central Bank of India, Etmadpur and Tundla branches, with which the petitioner firm had no concern. Raj Nath carried on business at Mysore also prior to joining in Mysore but the petitioner firm had no concern with t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cer took the view that Raj Nath was connected with the petitioners business and in support of this view the Income-tax Officer catalogued the information in his possession in various paragraphs of the letter and asked the petitioner to rebut the said material and also to produce its accounts books. This letter was followed by the another letter dated April 17, 1961, in which the petitioner was required to produce all books of accounts and also Raj Nath, Banwari Lal, Daya Shankar and Shiam Sundar for examination by the Income-tax Officer. Meanwhile, the petitioner required the Income-tax Officer to communicate to it the reasons upon which the Commissioners sanction for proceedings under section 34 had been taken. As there is no provisions in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner for the three assessment years in question, namely, 1955-56, 1956-57 and 1957-58. Another minor submission which was made before me was that in the three notices which were issued to the petitioner for the said three years it was stated that income assessable to income-tax for the year 31st March, 1955 (31st March, 1956), 31st March, 1957, has escaped assessment, etc. It was argued that this was clearly erroneous as the end of the relevant years would be 31st March, 1956 (31st March, 1957), 31st March, 1958. I am not satisfied that if there is any error in this respect it caused any prejudice to the petitioner or that the petitioner was in way misled by the same. I accordingly overrule this point. In respect of the first point ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection was that enquiries against the two brothers were to be carried on up to the concluding stage and when that stage was reached then the Income-tax Officer would pass the order either against the one or the other but not against both. I do not see how this decision helps the petitioner in the present case. If at all anything could be concluded on the basis of this decision it is this that the assessment orders against Raj Nath passed on April 25, 1961, should not have been passed and an assessment order under section 23 or a reassessment order under section 34 should have been passed against the one or the other only after the conclusion of the whole enquiry against both of them. Mr. Gopal Behari, appearing for the Income-tax department ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same income has been ruled in a later Division Bench case of this court in Moti Chandra v. Income-tax Officer, Kanpur. It may be re-emphasised that Joti Prasad Agarwal v. Income-tax Officer, Mathura was not a case in which another wholly unconnected person was being sought to be proceeded against in a proceedings under section 34 of the Income-tax Act. To my mind, therefore, this case also can be of no assistance to the petitioner. A third argument which was addressed to me but which was not mentioned in the grounds in the writ petition was that, the Income-tax Officer having assessed the income in question in the hands of Raj Nath under the assessment orders dated April 25, 1961, it could not be said that he had any reason to believe t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h the Income-tax Officer was pursuing the notice dated December 19, 1958, all along and even subsequently to April 25, 1961, it seems to me that it is not possible to say that the Income-tax Officer did not have reason to believe or that subsequent to April 25, 1961, he ceased to have reason to believe. If on April 25, 1961, on the statement Raj Nath he assessed the income in the hands of Raj Nath that must be attributable to the admission of Raj Nath that it was his income. It is well known that under the Income-tax Act very frequently assessment are made on income in the hands of persons who offer that income for assessment. That does not, however, mean that the mere fact that a particular income has been assessed in the hands of particul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
