TMI Blog1988 (10) TMI 17X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibunal was right in law in holding that the assessment made under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on December 30, 1974, was not valid assessment as it came to be made without service of notice under section 148 ? (ii) If the answer to question No. (i) is in the negative, whether, on the facts and in the circumstances, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that no association of persons was formed by the four persons in question in the impugned transaction of purchase and sale of land ?" Facts giving rise to the present reference, briefly stated, are as under Four out of the various partners of the firm, Noop Ram Man Singh, which was carrying on business at Bazar Sirkiwalan, Delhi, namely, Nanak Chand, Tulsi Ram, Har Par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 144 should be cancelled and a fresh assessment be made according to law. The contention of Shri Har Parshad found favour with the Income-tax Officer and he, vide his order dated October 6, 1970, cancelled the assessment under section 144 holding that notice under section 139(2)/148 was not served on the assessee. Shri Har Parshad alone out of the four aforesaid persons or his son, Ishwar Chander, joined the subsequent proceedings, for fresh assessment and assessment against the assessee as association of persons was finally made by the Income-tax Officer, Rewari, vide his order dated December 30, 1974 (annexure "A"). In the appeal preferred against that order, both the arguments giving rise to the present questions of law were repelled ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sputed that the names of the legal heirs of the two deceased were never mentioned in the notice. Thus, for obvious reasons, no presumption with regard to service of notice against Sarvshri Nanak Chand, Pehlad Dutt and Tulsi Ram can be raised by any stretch of imagination. Again, the Income-tax Officer, in his order dated October 6, 1970, of cancellation of assessment under section 146 ofthe Act, has categorically found that the notice was not served upon the assessee and thus the presumption, if any, possible against any of the four persons in question, stood rebutted and it is riot possible to conclude that the notice in question was served before February 21, 1969. However, filing of return by Shri Har Parshad which could be filed in resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owning property. The land was purchased in May 1951, and it was sold after more than eight years. The mere fact that it was sold after dividing it into 12 plots does not mean that at the time of its purchase, the purpose or object was to earn profits or gains. Every owner would like to get maximum price for his property, when sold. Even if the land was required to be sold against the will of the persons in question under some pressure, because it perhaps was distress sale to meet the liability and losses of firm, Noop Ram Man Singh, as held by the Tribunal in annexure "C", they were bound to make an effort to get maximum proceeds at the time of sale. The consideration paid from the books of account of Noop Ram Man Singh was divided equally ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
