9911796707
TMI Blog1966 (12) TMI 2X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le to certify that it involves such a question. That apart, it is contended that the order against which the appeal is sought to be filed is not a final order within the meaning of article 133(1) of the Constitution of India for it does not of its own force bind or affect the rights of the parties and, notwithstanding this order, it is still open in law to the department, subject to the law of limitation, to issue fresh notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act. We may state here briefly the facts of the case. One Narayana Reddi was an assessee and he died in 1948 leaving behind him his widow, five daughters and his mother. On his death the widow succeeded to his properties. When she was in possession of the entire estate, a will was b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng that omission to issue notices to the mother and the trustees invalidated the notices issued to the daughters also. This contention found favour with this court. The writ appeals preferred were also dismissed on that basis. It was observed therein that the department must be presumed to have known and was in fact aware of all the legal representatives. It knew full well all about the compromise decree. In these circumstances, failure to issue notices to the mother and the trustees of the charitable institutions invalidates also the notices issued to the daughters. The notices issued under section 34 of the Income-tax Act were, therefore, bad in law. The result of this decision was that the department could no longer continue proceedings ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the parties involved in or forming the subject-matter of the income-tax proceeding. Hence it is not a final order within the meaning of article 133. That is also how it is argued on behalf of the respondents relying on T. A. Thangavelu Chettiar & Co. v. Government of Madras, Shivram Poddar v. Income-tax Officer, Nidhpal Sharma v. Union of India, Seth Premchand Satramdas v. State of Bihar, Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee v. Shiv Rattan Dev and Jethanand & Sons v. State of U.P. The contention of the petitioners, on the other hand, is that on account of the supervening bar of limitation no proceedings can now be started under section 34 of the Income-tax Act and, therefore, the order passed must be presumed to be final. Further, it is urged tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
