TMI Blog1960 (2) TMI 56X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erative for what was known as the abkari (toddy) year October 1, 1943, to September 30, 1944. His own claim all along was that he sustained a loss over that contract as a whole. Whether that claim is well founded or not, it may not be necessary to decide at this stage. In response to a notice issued under section 34 of the Act for the assessment year 1944-45, the assessee filed a return on March 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ained that he had incurred a loss of ₹ 1241-12-0 over the contract as a whole. Then there was this passage in that affidavit: From the abovesaid particulars it will be seen that I have incurred a loss of ₹ 620-14-0 for the assessment year 1944-45 and the balance of loss not less than ₹ 620-14-0 for the assessment year 1945-46. Again, whether that contention was correct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is against this background we have to answer the two questions referred to this court under section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act: 1.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the assessment made on the assessee is valid in law, 2.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income-tax Officer was correct in adopting the period Ist October, 1943, to 30th Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -46, the relevant previous year was from October 1,1944, to September 30, 1945, may be incorrect. As we said, the correctness or incorrectness of the statements made in the return filed on March 29, 1946, for the assessment year 1945-46 still left the assessee in the position that he had filed a return for 1945-46. It should be remembered that with reference to the return for this assessment year ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the relevant passage is at pages 575 and 576. Since the first question has to be answered against the Department and in favour of the assessee, that the initiation of proceedings under section 34 of the Act was not valid, the assessment itself, which was based on that invalid notice under section 34 of the Act, has to be set aside. We answer the first question in the negative and in favour of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
