9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (7) TMI 80X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... novo from the stage of section 144B proceedings after issuing notices to all the legal representatives ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal ought to have held that the assessment was null and void and, consequently, it ought to have annulled the entire assessment? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee after having participated in all the proceedings and after receipt of the draft assessment order could raise objection regarding validity of service of notice and of the assessment orders ? " One Muddusuvarna was the original assessee. For the assessment year 1973-74 he was served with a notice und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ugh he gave some relief on the merits of the matter. Thereupon, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. It was contended before the Tribunal that the assessment order was invalid since all the legal representatives of Muddasuvarna were not notified. On behalf of the Revenue, it was contended that Ashok Kumar, having participated in the proceedings as a legal representative of Muddusuvarna, he could not raise the contention regarding the validity of the assessment. It was urged that if any such contention could be raised, it could be only by the other legal representatives of Muddusuvarna and not by Ashok Kumar himself. The Tribunal rejected the contention urged for the Revenue. It held that Ashok Kumar could raise the object ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es. All legal representatives must be notified. But, in the instant case, that contention is not relevant. Notice under section 139(2) was served on Muddusuvarna when he was alive. He did not file the return. Under the law, there was a valid initiation of the proceedings. There is no requirement under the law to issue another notice under section 139(2) to the legal representatives. However, having come to know that Muddusuvarna died leaving behind him more than one legal representative, the Income-tax Officer issued a notice again to Ashok Kumar. That was not a legal requirement under the statute. The fact that the Income-tax Officer had issued a notice under section 139(2) to Ashok Kumar will not make it obligatory to issue similar notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to be considered by the Income-tax Officer before transmitting the papers with the draft order to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under section 144B. In the circumstances, we answer the first question in the affirmative and against the assessee. In the light of the conclusion that we have reached on the first question, the answer to the second question shall be in the negative and in favour of the Revenue and we answer it accordingly. So far as the third question is concerned, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was justified in stating that participation in the proceedings by Ashok Kumar will not preclude him from raising the question that the other legal representatives must also be notified. There is no estoppel so far as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
