TMI Blog1965 (9) TMI 57X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e under sections 22(2) and 38 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 and this latter notice in express terms related to the assessment year 1950-51. Though the assessment was called upon to file a return of his income, the assessee, it appears, did not do so and the Income-tax Officer, therefore, issued another notice dated 15th July, 1959, under section 22(4) against the assessee. The assessee in the meantime finding that there was a discrepancy in the assessment years mentioned in the two notices sent by the Income-tax Officer on 9th March, 1959, addressed a letter dated 15th July, 1959, to the Income-tax Officer pointing out the discrepancy and requesting him to issue a fresh notice setting out the correct assessment year for which the assessment was sought to be reopened. The Income-tax Officer by his letter dated 16th July, 1959, pointed out to the assessee the proceedings under section 34(1) (a) had been initiated against the assessee for the assessment year 1950-51 and not for the assessment year 1949-50 and that if no return was filed, the Income-tax Officer would proceed to make a best judgment assessment under section 23(4). The Income-tax Officer then proceeded to assess th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... put in by the learned Advocate-General on behalf of the revenue and which by consent of parties have been taken as part of the statement of case before us, that both the notices, one headed under section 34(1) (a) and the other headed under section 22(2) related to the correct assessment year, namely, 1951-52, and there could, therefore, be no scope for the argument that no valid notice under section 34(1) (a) was issued by the Income-tax Officer before making assessment of escaped income for the assessment year 1951-52. This position was frankly conceded by Mr. Kaji on behalf of the assessee and the question referred to us must, therefore be confined only to the validity of the notice for the assessment year 1950-51. 3. Now, in order to arrive at a proper determination of this question, it is necessary to refer to section 34(1) which provides for reopening of assessment of an assessee in certain specified cases. Where the conditions set out in clause (a) or clause (b) of section 34(1) are satisfied and the Income-tax Officer proposes to initiate proceedings for assessment of escaped income of an assessee, the Income-tax Officer is required to issue a notice containing all or an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at there were two notices sent by the Income-tax Officer to the assessee, one under section 34(1) (a) relating to the assessment year 1949-50 and the other under section 22(2) relating to the assessment year 1950-51 and the notice under section 34(1) (a) being a complete document by itself satisfying the requirements of section 34(1) (a), it was not competent to the revenue to say that, though the notice under section 34(1) (a) was a notice for the assessment year 1949-50, it should be read a notice for the assessment year 1950-51, since the other notice under section 22(2) which accompanied the notice under section 34(1) (a) mentioned the assessment year 1950-51. According to Mr. Kaji a notice under section 34(1) must necessarily consist of a single document and the notice headed under section 34, containing as it did all the requirements of section 34(1), was therefore a complete notice under section 34(1) (a) and the notice headed under section 22(2) was a superfluous and unnecessary document which could not be utilised by the revenue for the purpose of construing the notice under section 34(1) (a) and in the notice under section 34(1) (a). Mr. Kaji also contended in the alterna ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no indication in either of the two notices to show that they are related to each other or are intended to form part and parcel of a single notice. The notice headed under section 34 is a complete document by itself containing all the requirements of section 34(1) (a) so far as the assessment year 1949-50 is concerned and there is no deficiency or incompleteness about it for which the assessee might be required or expected to refer to the notice headed under section 22(2). There is also nothing in the notice headed under section 34 to indicate that the notice headed under section 22(2) was intended to be supplementary or complementary to the notice headed under section 34 so as to constitute the two notices as part and parcel of a single notice. There is in fact no reference to the notice headed under section 22(2) in the notice headed under section 34 and vice versa. The two notices are issued under different sections and are for different assessment years and there is nothing to show even as much as a tenuous connection between the two notices. One is a notice under section 34(1) (a) for the assessment year 1949-50, while the other is a notice under section 22(2) for the assessmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
