TMI Blog1959 (2) TMI 38X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itioner was that initially the notice of demand for payment of advance Income Tax under Section 18A(1) of the Act was void in law because the demand in that notice was based on the last completed assessment of the assessee but in that demand his income from two firms of which he was a partner was taken to be the same as had been included in his last completed assessment and there was no substitution for that amount of the share of his income as calculated on the basis of subsequent completed assessments of those firms. This ground clearly fails for three reasons. The first reason is that the ground is based on non-compliance by the Income Tax Officer with the provisions of the second proviso to Section 18A(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he years for which the income of these firms had been subsequently assessed. The counter-affidavit indicates that according to the assessment of the firm Goverdhandas Radhey Lal for the year 1946-47, the share of the petitioner in its income was ₹ 3,198/- but it is not at all known what would have been the share of the petitioner in the income of the firm Babu Ram Goverdhandas which was assessed for the year 1947-48. It thus appears that the petitioner has not given sufficient information to show as to what should have been the correct figure to be substituted in place of ₹ 7,834/-. The effect of the bifurcation of the original firm Goverdhandas Radhey Lal could be taken into account in two possible ways: one was that, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice of demand was incorrect. The third reason is that even if it be held that there was an inaccuracy in the notice of demand, it will not invalidate that notice and make it altogether void. If, according to the assessee, the demand was excessive, he could have certainly moved the officer issuing the notice of demand to correct the demand but the mere inaccuracy in the demand would not make the notice of demand entirely void and ineffective, In pursuance of that demand, the petitioner submitted his own estimate under Section 18A(2) of the Income Tax Act and deposited the tax on the basis of his estimate. Once that estimate had been submitted and the tax deposited on its basis, the original figure of the demand in the notice under Sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fth proviso to Section 18A(6) of the Income Tax Act read with Rule 48 of the rules framed under that Act. In that proviso, it is laid down that in such cases and under such circumstances as may be prescribed, the Income Tax Officer may reduce or waive the interest payable by the assessee. Under Rule 48(1), the Income Tax Officer may reduce or waive the interest payable under Section 18A when the relevant assessment is completed more than one year after the submission of the return, the delay in assessment not being attributable to the assessee. In the affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner, it is not claimed that, at any stage, the Income Tax Officer was requested on his behalf to exercise his powers under that proviso in favou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
