9911796707
TMI Blog1973 (5) TMI 17X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red to the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle, Patna, and he was assessed by that officer up to October, 1944. From October, 1944 to July, 1947, he was again assessed by the Income-tax Officer, Hazaribagh, to whom his case had been transferred back. By order dated August 1, 1947, made by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar and Orissa, under section 5(7A) of the Act, the assessee's case was transferred from Hazaribagh to the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle, Patna. The original assessment for 1947-48 was made by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle, Patna, on February 11, 1948. By a notification dated April 21, 1951, the Commissioner of Income-tax, Patna, transferred the cases of various assessees including that of the assessee from the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle, Patna, to the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle, Ranchi, as a special circle was created there also. The Central Board of Revenue, by a notification issued under section 5(7A) on August 18, 1952, transferred the assessee's case from the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle, Ranchi, to the Income-tax, Officer, Central Circle II, Calcutta. The assessee filed a writ petition under article 32 of the Constitution b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t possible for the assessee to comply with the terms of the aforesaid notice." The Income-tax Officer, Hazaribagh, held that at the relevant time the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle, Ranchi, had jurisdiction because the Supreme Court set aside the order of the Central Board of Revenue dated August 18, 1952, the result of which was that the order of the Commissioner dated April 21, 1951, transferring the assessee's case from Patna to Ranchi was revived and remained intact. He further held that the notice under section 34 read with section 22 of the Act was properly served by affixation at the assessee's residence at Padma on March 28, 1956, and thus, there was a failure on the part of the assessee to comply with the aforesaid notice. He finally held that the assessee had been given sufficient time to comply with the notices under sections 22(2) and 22(4) of the Act but he failed to comply with them. The Income-tax Officer refused to re-open the assessment and dismissed the petition filed under section 27 of the Act. On an appeal by the assessee, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld the view of the Income-tax Officer on the first point. He also held that the Income-tax Off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s allowed the appeal and directed the reopening of the assessment in accordance with section 27 of the Act. On being asked by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar and Orissa, to refer a case to this court under section 66(1) of the Act, the Tribunal refused to do so. This court directed it to state a case. It has accordingly done it and referred two questions of law to this court for determination. They are the following: "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appeal filed before the Tribunal was competent and within time? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessment by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle, Ranchi, is legal and valid and not liable to be cancelled?" The first question must be answered in favour of the assessee and against the department. On the facts and in the circumstances of this case, as discussed by the Tribunal in its order, the appeal filed before it was competent and was accepted to be in time. The Tribunal had power to accept the filing of the certified copy of the correct order of the Income-tax Officer, Hazaribagh, even on expiry of the time limit fixed for the filing of the appeal under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty, in Raja Bahadur Kamakshya Narain Singh v. Income-tax Officer (C.W.J.C. No. 358 of 1967 decided on the 19th March, 1969). Therein, this very assessee had challenged the certificate proceedings which were commenced for realisation of income-tax dues from him in relation to some other years, inter alia, on the ground that after the setting aside of the order of the Central Board of Revenue dated August 18, 1952, by the Supreme Court on March 23, 1956, the Ranchi Income-tax Officer had no jurisdiction. This argument was repelled and it was held in paragraph 7 of the judgment: "The order of the Board was set aside by the Supreme Court. The usual and the natural consequence of it was that the file had to be sent back to the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle, Ranchi, as the order of the Income-tax Officer, dated the 21 st April, 1951, transferring the petitioner's file to Ranchi was never challenged before the Supreme Court, when the order of the Central Board of Revenue transferring his file from Ranchi to Calcutta was challenged." Obviously, the expression "Income-tax Officer" in relation to the order dated 21st April, 1951, is a mistake for the expression "Commissioner of Income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
