TMI Blog1963 (7) TMI 89X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) and section 23(2) dated the 14th of March, 1962, and 11th of September, 1962. The facts leading up to this petition are these. The petitioner was a partner in a firm M/s. Mangal Sen Manchand, an unregistered firm carrying on business at Doiwala, Dehra Dun. The other partner was Manchand. The business carried on was that of contract of loading and unloading of sugar-cane from the centre of purchase to the gate of the sugar mill called Sir Shadi Lal Sugar and General Mills Limited, Mansurpur. There was an agreement between the two partners of the firm and the said mill in regard to the loading and unloading contract. Under this agreement the firm was entitled to receive 10 pice per maund as labour and commission charges on the quantity s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at 15% as last year on total payment of ₹ 82,000 comes to ₹ 12,300.... Stress is laid on the words nature of the contract which according to the petitioner goes to indicate that the question of the receipts attributable to the quantum of driage must have been brought to the notice of the then Income-tax Officer. I will advert to this aspect a little later when considering whether all the primary facts had been duly disclosed by the petitioner at the time of the original assessment and as such notice under section 34 was not justified. To continue with the narration of facts, for the assessment year 1959-60, the Income-tax Officer considered for the first time the question of the nature of the receipt in respect of driage ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th of May, 1962. Notices under section 22(4) and section 23(2) were also issued on the 14th March, 1962, and 11th September, 1962, respectively but no compliance has yet been made. The petitioner filed the writ petitions challenging the issue of the notice under section 34 on the ground, inter alia, (1) that all the primary facts were disclosed at the time of the original assessment, (2) that the notice issued under section 34 was misleading, (3) that if all the primary facts were disclosed and the notice under section 34(1) was invalid then the notice if treated as one under section 34(1)(b) would be barred by limitation and (4) that the firm having been dissolved, notice could not be issued in the name of the firm but had to be issued to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ] 35 I.T.R. 388 ; [1959] Suppl. 1 S.C.R. 189, Lakshminarain Bhadani v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1951] 20 I.T.R. 594, Commissioner of Income-tax v. S.V. Angidi Chettiar [1962] 44 I.T.R. 739 (S.C.), Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1959] 35 I.T.R. 1 ; [1959] Suppl. 1 S.C.R. 10, Bhawani Prasad Girdhar Lal v. Income-tax Officer (Miscellaneous case No. 224 of 1960, decided on 31st October, 1962 (unreported decision of a Division Bench of this court) and Ram Niwas Hanuman Bux Somani v. S. Venkataraman [1961] 43 I.T.R. 152. Lastly, even if it can be said that the issue of the notice under section 34 was misleading because at one place the date by which the return had to be filed was given as the 16th February, 1962, y ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
