TMI Blog2005 (11) TMI 499X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d-assessee on 26-3-1997 which was served upon him on 27-3-1997, proposing to reopen the assessment for both the assessment years mentioned earlier. The appellant it is common ground appeared before the Assessing Officer through Sh. R. Balasubramanian, Chartered Accountant and furnished the requisite explanations which were taken into consideration and a reassessment order made by the Assessing Officer for both the assessment years determining the taxable income of the deceased-assessee at ₹ 2,25,550 for the assessment year 1992-93 and ₹ 2,30,630 for the assessment year 1993-94. 2. Aggrieved by the said orders, the appellant preferred appeals before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), inter alia, contending that since a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pursuant to the service of notice upon him appeared before the Assessing Officer and provided the requisite explanation with the help of his Chartered Accountant. The plea regarding non-services upon other LRs was not at any stage advanced before the Assessing Officer. The same was urged by the appellant for the first time in appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax who had permitted an additional ground to be urged at that stage. The Tribunal has in our view correctly need that the matter stands authoritatively concluded by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Jai Prakash Singh s case (supra) . The Apex Court has in the said case noticed a similar argument and held that non-issue of notices to other LRs of the deceased- assessee was n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tarily filed the returns of income should raise this issue; no other legal representative of B.N. Singh has come forward with such a plea. We do not wish to go into the question whether Jai Prakash Singh should at all have been allowed to so turn round and raise this plea in appeal, for the reason that the said issue is not before us in these appeals. We are of the opinion that the High Court was not right in holding in the above circumstances that the assessment orders made are null and void. They are not. At the worst, they are defective proceedings - or irregular proceedings - as has been rightly held by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal. . . . ****** . . . The principle that emerges from the above decision i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
