TMI Blog1979 (8) TMI 4X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... D. TULZAPURKAR. and R. S. PATHAK. JUDGMENT The short question which arises for determination in this appeal by certificate is whether the reassessment sought to be made by the ITO on the assessee-trust under s. 34(1)(b) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, was time barred. The assessee-trust was created by one Shri S. Raghubir Singh and for the assessment year 1954-55, for which the relevant accounting year was the financial year ending on 31st March, 1954, the assessee-trust filed a return of income on 31st March, 1954. The ITO took the view that the assessee-trust was sham and bogus and was created merely as a device for evasion of tax and he, therefore, refused to recognise the assessee-trust as valid and made an order stating that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o to s. 34(3) did not save the reassessment proceedings against the assessee-trust from the bar of limitation. The revenue being aggrieved by this decision of the Tribunal made an application for a reference and on the application, the following question of law, namely : " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the assessment made under section 34(1)(b) for the assessment year 1954-55, was barred by time and was not saved by the second proviso to section 34(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 ? " was referred by the Tribunal to the High Court. The High Court agreed with the view taken by the Tribunal and held that the second proviso to s. 34(3) was not attracted because the assessee-trust and S. Raghubir Singh were two di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee-trust and not to S. Raghubir Singh. The finding given by the Punjab High Court that the income belonged to the assessee-trust and not to S. Raghubir Singh was, therefore, a finding necessary for disposing of the reference in favour of S. Raghubir Singh and it was clearly a " finding " within the meaning of the second proviso to s. 34(3). But the question still remains whether the second condition was satisfied and the assessee-trust could be said to be " any person " within the meaning of the second proviso to s. 34(3). This court observed in Murlidhar Bagwan Das's case [1964] 52 ITR 335 (SC), that the expression " any person " in the context in which it occurs must be confined to a person intimately connected with the assessment in wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
