TMI Blog1982 (4) TMI 60X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... right in holding that the absence of signature on the notice simply constitutes a mistake or omission within the meaning of section 292B of the Income-tax Act ? (3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the penalty levied under section 27l(1)(a) is valid in law ? " The material facts giving rise to this reference, as set out in the statement of the case are as follows: The assessee is a partner of a firm carrying on business in the name and style of M/s. Umashankar Mishra. For the assessment year 1972-73, the return of income was filed by the assessee on February 10, 1976, and for the assessment year 1973-74, the return of income was filed by the assessee on March 10, 1976. , On account of delay in filing the ret ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. Aggrieved by the order of Tribunal, the assessee sought a reference and it is at the instance of the assessee that the aforesaid questions of law have been referred to this court for its opinion. The first question for consideration is whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the notice issued to the assessee under s. 271 (1)(a) of the Act was a valid notice. Now, the Tribunal has found that that notice was not signed by the ITO. Section 282 of the Act provides that a notice under the Act may be served on the person named therein as if it were summons issued by a court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Subrule (3) of r. 1 of 0. 5, CPC, provides that every summons shall be signed by the judge or such officer, as he appoints ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C, which are applicable by virtue of s. 282 of the Act. Under the circumstances, the provisions of s. 292B of the Act would not be attracted in the instant case and the Tribunal, in our opinion, was not right in holding that the notice issued under s. 271 (1)(a) of the Act was a valid notice in the eye of law. In view of our answer to the first question, our answer to the second question is that the Tribunal was not right in holding that the absence of the signature on the notice simply constituted a mistake or omission within the meaning of s. 292B of the Act. In view of the fact that no valid notice was served on the assessee before levying penalty, our answer to the third question is that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
