TMI Blog1963 (8) TMI 49X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The assessment year is 1946-1947. The assessment was reopened under section 34. The original assessment was on Chandrabhan Johurmull in the status of an individual. He died in May, 1949. On the security of a fixed deposit of ₹ 25,000 standing in the name of one Luchminarain Maheswari, the assessee, Chandrabhan Johurmull, had obtained overdraft facilities. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 was issued to him, and, in compliance with the notice, filed a return by showing himself to be the legal representative of his father. The Tribunal was of opinion that this was a case of waiver of the defect in the notice. It has taken note of the decision of the Bombay High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ramsukh Motilal [1955] 27 ITR 54 as also that of the court in Tarak Nath Bagchi v. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... troversy has now been set at rest by the observations of the Supreme Court in Y. Narayana Chetty v. Income-tax Officer, Nellore [1959] 35 ITR 388 ; [1959] Supp. 1 SCR 189. At page 392, Gajendra-gadkar J. states as follows : The argument is that the service of the requisite notice on the assessee is a condition precedent to the validity of any reassessment made under section 34 ; and if a valid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cope for any further argument in this matter. The notice which was issued and served in the instant case was obviously invalid and the proceedings before the Income-tax Officer were, consequently, illegal and void. The service of notice on the assessee was a condition precedent to the assumption of jurisdiction by the Income-tax Officer under section 34. No consent can confer jurisdiction upon a c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
