TMI Blog1961 (8) TMI 47X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is the Amalgamated Coffee Estates Limited, Sitharkunda. The assessment related to the assessment year 1955-56. The Tribunal set aside the reassessment under section 35 of the Act on the ground that the notice issued under that section gave only a period of three days, that is, less than the minimum prescribed under section 16(2) of the Act. That fact, according to the Tribunal, made the reassessment an assessment without jurisdiction. Section 35 reads as follows: If for any reason agricultural income chargeable to tax under this Act has escaped assessment in any financial year or has been assessed at too low a rate, the Agricultural Income-tax Officer may, at any time, within three years of the end of that year serve on the perso ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Income-tax Act, 1944--arose under sections 34 and 22(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The leading case, and the foundation of the decision of the Appellate Tribunal, is the decision of Chagla C.J. Commissioner of Income- tax v. Ramsukh Motilal [1955] 27 I.T.R. 54, 57. The questions posed in that case were: (1) Whether the notice issued under section 34 dated 19th March, 1949, requiring the assessee to file a return by 25th March, 1949, is valid in law? (2) If the answer to the first question is in the negative, whether the proceedings taken in pursuance of such notice, without any objection on the part of the assessee as to invalidity of that notice and in spite of compliance as to the requirements of the notice, are voi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 34 without complying with the condition precedent laid down in section 34 which alone could have given him jurisdiction to assess the assessee. And answered the first question in the negative and the second in the affirmative. The contention of Mr. Isaac, appearing on behalf of the applicant, is somewhat different from that of Mr. Joshi before the High Court of Bombay. According to him the prescribed time-lag will apply when a return is called for; but not when as in this case, no return is demanded, and only particulars are required. We cannot find our way to accept this submission. A period of not less than thirty days appears to have been stipulated for anything and everything that the assessee may be called upon to do in a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Income-tax Officer without a notice or in pursuance of an invalid notice would be illegal and void. That is the view taken by the Bombay and Calcutta High Courts in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ramsukh Motilal [1955] 27 I.T.R. 54 and R.K. Das Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1956] 30 I.T.R. 439 and we think that that view is right. That the position is the same under the Madras Plantations Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955, is not is dispute. And in view of the approval by the Supreme Court of the judgment of Chagla C.J. in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ramsukh Motilal [1955] 27 I.T.R. 54 we consider it unnecessary to deal with the question any further, and we hold that the reassessment of the assessee in pursuance of the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
