TMI Blog1973 (4) TMI 7X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t to submit its income-tax returns in respect of the assessment years mentioned earlier. In response to those notices the assessee submitted its returns on August 11, 1953. When those returns were pending before the Income-tax Officer, Ajmer, the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle IV, issued fresh notices to the assessee under section 34 calling upon it to submit its income-tax returns in respect of those very assessment years. The assessee did not submit any return. On the other hand, it wrote a letter to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle IV, saying that it had already submitted its returns to the Income-tax Officer, Ajmer, and hence it could not be called upon to submit fresh returns. Ignoring the objection of the assessee the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle, assessed the assessee. He rejected the assessee's objection regarding jurisdiction with these words : " By its letter dated 27th September, 1956, the assessee contended that under section 64(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, the place of assessment should be where the assessee carried on business, profession or vocation and that as the principal place of the business was at Jaipur, the place of assessment should ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Income-tax Officer, Ajmer, after taking the previous approval of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi. A return was filed, but the assessment was not completed. Later on, it was found that the Income-tax Officer, Ajmer, was not empowered and had no jurisdiction to issue notice under section 34(1)(a) in respect of the pre-integration period. The proceedings started by him were, therefore, not valid in the eye of law. Thereafter, the Income-tax Officer, Central IV, Delhi, issued notice under section 34(1A) after obtaining the prior approval of the Central Board of Revenue. On receipt of this notice, the company in its letter dated April 2, 1955, informed the Income-tax Officer that a return had already been filed for that year and requested him to treat the said return as one submitted in compliance with the notice under section 34(1A). The Income-tax Officer only complied with the request. Under the circumstances, there is no merit in the appellant's contention that the Income-tax Officer was not competent to issue the notice under section 34(1A) for the assessment year 1946-47." Here again, it may be noticed that the only contention taken before the Appellate Assistant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n favour of the department. There is no dispute that if the assessment proceedings under section 34 initiated by the Income-tax Officer, Ajmer, are valid proceedings, the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle, would not have had jurisdiction to issue fresh notices under section 34. The case for the department is that the Income-tax Officer, Ajmer, had no jurisdiction over the assessee in respect of the assessment years with which we are concerned and, consequently, the notices issued by him under section 34 in respect of those years were invalid notices. We have to see whether that submission is correct. If we hold that the notices issued by the Income-tax Officer, Ajmer, are invalid notices, then we have to uphold the judgment of the High Court. At no stage before the authorities under the Act, the assessee had put forward the case that any Income-tax Officer other than the Income-tax Officer, Ajmer, or the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle, had jurisdiction over it in respect of the assessment years in question. Section 5, sub-section (6) of the Act, provides : " The Central Board of Revenue may, by notification in the official Gazette, empower Commissioners of Income-tax, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e for direct assessment, etc. house property, interest etc., residing in the following Indian States : Jaipur. I.T.O., Ajmer. I.A.C., Delhi. A.A.C., Delhi. C.I.T., Delhi. (57) to (100) * * * * * * This item will apply only to Pending assessments for period or periods before the integration or merger of the Indian States. (Emphasis is supplied). Jaipur was integrated into India on 7th April, 1949, but for the purposes of income-tax it was integrated as from 1st April, 1950. In view of the aforementioned notification it is clear that the Income-tax Officer, Ajmer, had jurisdiction over the residents of Jaipur after the issue of that notification only in respect of the assessments pending before him and not in respect of any other assessments. Quite clearly the assessee's assessments were not pending before the Income-tax Officer, Ajmer. Hence, the contention advanced on behalf of the assessee that the Income-tax Officer, Ajmer, had jurisdiction over it in respect of the assessment years in question cannot be upheld. It was never urged either before the Income-tax Officer or before the Appellate A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
