TMI Blog1946 (1) TMI 9X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1(2) and the latter within principal place of business was at Gulu Ostagar Lane, Calcutta. Proceedings having been taken with respect to this business of which, at one time, a man named Panchanan Bagchi was the sole proprietor and the applicant having been appointed receiver, he entered upon his duties and took possession of the assets on the 18th July, 1935. In this matter before us, the Commissioner of Income-tax, Calcutta, is showing cause against a rule nisi granted by this Court on the 12th January, 1944, requiring the Income-tax Tribunal to refer to this Court certain questions which the applicant alleges arose out of its decision with regard to the assessment of the profits of the business for the year 1935-36. The questions with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rict No. 5 acknowledging a post-card and stating that his office was at No. 19 and 19/1, Gulu Ostager Lane, Calcutta, where all the accounts were kept and books of account were being produced to the Income-tax Officer of District No. 1(2). In view of those circumstances, the applicant requested a transfer of the pending case to District No. 1(2) for his convenience. This transfer was effected and the file was sent to District No. 1(2). On the 22nd June, 1939, the Additional Income-tax Officer of that District made an assessment against which the applicant appealed to the Tribunal and in respect of which the present matter arises. It was contended that the two transfers, firstly, from District No. 1(2) to District No. 5 and, later, from D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accruing, or arising or received within the area for which he is appointed. It was argued that since the principal place of business was at the address within the area of District No. 1(2), the Income-tax Officer of that District alone had jurisdiction to give notice under Section 34 of the Income-tax Act and also that Section 64 in no way allows a transfer of the file from one officer to another, save when such transfer is made by the Commissioner. The effect of Section 64 and its sub-sections has been considered in In re, Bisheshwar Nath Co. [1942] 10 I.T.R. 103, a decision by the Allahabad High Court. It was there held that the effect of sub-sections (1) and (4) of Section 64 is that, where two or more Income-tax Officers have te ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (2) to District No. 5 was a proper transfer, the officers in each District having concurrent jurisdiction, and that thereafter the Income-tax Officer of the latter District had jurisdiction to issue the notice which, in fact, he did under Section 34 of the Act. There is no doubt that that notice was served upon the applicant. Although it was in the name of the undivided family of P.M. Bagchi Co., it related to the business of which the applicant was a receiver. No exception whatever was taken to the notice or to its form. Indeed, the applicant in his letter of the 20th January, 1937, makes it quite clear that he had accepted the notice and the matters with regard to assessment were acceptable to him and the letter he merely asked that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I am unable to appreciate that argument. There is an Additional Income-tax Officer in District No. 1(2). He is properly authorised to deal with income-tax matters within that District and in doing what he did he acted clearly within the authority and jurisdiction which he is entitled to exercise. This application is made under Section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act, inasmuch as the Appellate Tribunal was asked to state a case for the opinion of this Court on questions which are now being considered and the Tribunal refused to state the case. This sub-section, so far as it is material, provides as follows:- If on any application being made under sub-section (1) the Appellate Tribunal refuses to state the case on the ground that no quest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ement made by Mr. J.R. Roy, pleader, to the effect that the business was carried on at 14, Clive Street, was not only unauthorised but totally untrue and without any foundation. This letter, or a copy of it, was not exhibited to the petition. It has been exhibited to the letter of the Commissioner regarding the rule nisi. I have already referred to that letter but will do so again. In that letter the applicant wrote as follows:- .....my office being at No. 19 and 19/1, Gulu Ostagar Lane, Calcutta, and all the accounts are kept at the said address and moreover the books of accounts of 1339 B.S. are to be produced to the Income-tax Officer, District No. 1(2), as per his notice. In view of the above circumstances, I ask you to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
