TMI Blog1979 (7) TMI 59X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as " the Act "), for the assessment year 1948-49. The petitioner is a resident of jodhpur in the State of Rajasthan. His case is that he received notice Ex. 1 on December 31, 1968, wherein it was mentioned that though notice under s. 148 of the Act for the assessment year 1948-49 had been issued to the petitioner and served upon him by registered post on March 31, 1965, yet, the petitioner had not filed the return so far. The petitioner was, therefore, directed to file the return. He was also asked to produce necessary evidence regarding investment made by him in shares of R. B. Lodha Company, Calcutta, and Mineral Mining Company, Bombay, along with the source of investments. A notice under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he may be given an opportunity to substantiate his plea of non-service of the notice dated March 27, 1965, and also prayed that the question of jurisdiction of the ITO to initiate proceedings under s. 147 of the Act be decided before the petitioner is called upon to furnish a return. On January 13, 1969, the petitioner submitted another affidavit stating therein that another notice under s. 148 of the Act issued on March 4, 1965, and alleged to have been served upon one Damodar Lal M. Kabra of Malagaon, Nasik, in the State of Maharashtra, was never served upon him, but was served on some other person not known to the petitioner. A copy of this affidavit has been placed on record and marked Ex. 7. It appears that thereafter on February 13, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ex. 11, whereby a certified copy of the notice dated March 27, 1965, has been served upon the petitioner. It is argued that under s. 149 of the Act, no notice under s. 148 of the Act can be issued and served for the relevant assessment year where more than 16 years have elapsed from the end of that year, even in a case where the income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment, amounts to or is likely to amount to Rs. 50,000 or more for that year. On the other hand, Shri Mehta has argued that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the only reasonable inference is that both the notices issued to the petitioner during the year 1965 were duly served upon him. In this connection, he has invited our attention to s. 27 of the General C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Housing Construction (P.) Ltd. v. Delhi Municipal Corporation, AIR 1976 SC 386, ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das [1976] 103 ITR 437 (SC) and ITO v. Ramnarayan Bhojnagarwala [1976] 103 ITR 797 (SC). However, for the decision of the case in hand, we may not address ourselves to this aspect as, in our opinion, the case can be disposed of on the first point and the learned counsel for the petitioner also made a prayer that this question may not be decided at this stage. However, we are unable to accede to the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the ITO, while issuing the letter, Ex. 11, had come to the conclusion that service of notices dated March 4, 1965, and March 27, 1965, on the petitioner had not been effected, when they p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
