TMI Blog1971 (3) TMI 28X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... questions for the opinion of this court : " 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income-tax was competent to take proceedings under section 33B and to pass an order under section 33B ? 2. If, the answer to the above question is in the affirmative, whether the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 33B was a valid and proper order ? " The assessee-firm was assessed by the Income-tax Officer as an unregistered firm for the years 1960-61 and 1961-62, respectively. The Commissioner of Income-tax, having satisfied that the assessments made were prejudicial to the interests of the revenue and that section 23(5)(b) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, was attracted, purporte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been instituted under the Actof 1922 and should be disposed of as if the Act of 1961 had not been passed. The Commissioner issued a fresh notice on August 27, 1962, this time under section 33B of the Act of 1922. The notice required the assessee to appear on August 29, 1962. It was served on one Sundar Das on August 28, 1962. The department also attempted to serve the notice on one of the partners, Mangal Das, but he, it appears, was avoiding the service of the notice and it was served by affixation. When the proceedings were taken up by the Commissioner on August 29, 1962, one Pokar Das, representing himself to be an employee of one of the partners, attended before the Commissioner along with a letter stating that the proceedings had been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act of 1961. The Supreme Court also adverted to the Income-tax (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1962, paragraph 4(2) of which, as we have pointed out above, declares that a proceeding instituted under the Act of 1961 after March 31, 1962, and before August 8, 1962, should be deemed to have been instituted under the Act of 1922 and should be disposed as if the Act of 1961 had not been passed. Learned counsel for the assessee contends that the Income-tax (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1962, is invalid in so far as it is retrospective in operation, and section 298 of the Act of 1961, under which it was purportedly made, did not confer power upon the Central Government to make an order having retrospective effect. It seems to us that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fficient time had not been allowed for preparing the case. There is nothing to show that this finding is incorrect. The order of the Commissioner does not indicate that the assessee, either through Pokar Das or otherwise, made a grievance before the Commissioner of want of adequate time to present its case. We are satisfied that the contention of the assessee that adequate time was not afforded to it must be rejected. Besides, the notice dated August 6, 1962, under section 263 of the Act of 1961 apprised the assessee of the contemplated proceeding as long ago as August 9, 1962. That notice must be treated as valid in view of the order dated August 8, 1962, issued under section 298 of the Act of 1961. Pursuant to that order the notice dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
