TMI Blog1933 (7) TMI 20X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. Whether the period of limitation prescribed in s. 34 applies to penalty proceedings under s. 28. 2. During the accounting period 1928-29 the assessee was engaged in business as a dealer in tobacco at Tavoy. He produced before the Income-tax officer for the purpose of assessment for 1929-30 certain accounts which were rejected. The Income-tax officer upon the materials before him assessed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dings for the year 1930-31 happened to obtain some information with respect to the account books of the assessee. On going further into the matter he became dissatisfied with the assessment in respect of the tobacco business which had been made in the previous year, as he took the view that the Income-tax officer had estimated the quantity of tobacco at too high, and the profit at too low, a figur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d again, it was only an estimate, that it was ₹ 60 a maund. 4. The question is whether such assessment can be upheld. In our opinion it cannot. The Income-tax officer had no jurisdiction to revise the assessment for the previous year which was completed and had become final. We are of opinion the assessment which he made was not under s. 34, but was an attempt by one Income-tax officer to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
