TMI Blog1978 (3) TMI 20X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. In a revision preferred by the petitioners under s. 33A(2) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, certain negotiations took place and the assessment order was modified. The CIT by his order dated December 6, 1957, accepted the contention of the petitioners and allowed an amount of Rs. 14,66,720, which was included in the previous assessment order as a loss in speculation business. Later on, assessment proceedings were taken up in respect of the income of Messrs. Ramdas Dossa Company of Bombay, a firm carrying on business as a broker in cotton. In the course of the assessment proceedings of this firm, a question arose for consideration, whether the speculation loss of Rs. 10,15,360, alleged to have been paid by the petitioner to Messrs. Ramda ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the bar of limitation by virtue of Expln. 3 to sub-s. (3) of s. 153 of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as " the Act "). Thereafter, the respondent served upon the petitioners the impugned notice dated June 14, 1968, under s. 148 of the Act, after obtaining the necessary sanction of the Central Board of Direct Taxes on the ground that he had reason to believe that the income of the petitioners chargeable to tax for the assessment year 1949-50 had escaped assessment and that he proposed to reassess the same. The impugned notice was proposed to be challenged by the petitioners in this petition, inter alia, on the ground that the notice was barred by limitation and the provision of s. 153(3) of the Act has no application to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which is relevant for our purpose. It reads as under : " Where, by an order referred to in clause (ii) of sub-section (3), any income is excluded from the total income of one person and held to be the income of another person, then, an assessment of such income on such other person shall, for the purposes of section 150 and this section, be deemed to be one made in consequence of or to give effect to any finding or direction contained in the said order, provided such other person was given an opportunity of being heard before the said order was passed." It is by reason of the provisions of this Explanation that it is sought to be urged by Mr. Joshi, on behalf of the ITO, that the bar of limitation is not attracted and in view of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under the section. Here the petitioners which are a private limited company were given (sic) an opportunity of being heard, when the assessment order was passed by the AAC qua the firm of M/s. Ramdas Dossa Company for the assessment year 1949-50, and which order in appeal was confirmed by the Tribunal. It is a well settled position in law that a limited company is a separate entity and the mere fact that M. R. Ruia, who happened to be one of the directors of the petitioners, was examined as a witness, after an order of remand was made by the AAC in the assessment of the firm of M/s. Ramdas Dossa Company, is not a sufficient compliance with the requirements of the provisions of Expln. 3 to s. 153 of the Act. Under the said Explanatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
