TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1972 (2) TMI 26
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ars at page 47, annex. " G ". The notice was addressed to Messrs. Surajmal Behadurmull, 1, Convent Road, Calcutta. The notice was in respect of the assessment year 1957-58. In the said assessment year, there were two HUFs by the said name for the two periods--one was for the period from November 14, 1955 to December 31, 1955, and the other was for the period from January 1, 1956 to November 2, 195....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The notice was not addressed to any person in any particular capacity. Reliance was placed on the Division Bench decision of this court in the case of Sewlal Daga v. CIT [ 1965] 55 ITR 406 (Cal). Reliance was also placed on the unreported judgment of mine in Matter No. 542 of 1968, Shyam Sundar Bajaj v. ITO (since reported in [1973] 89 ITR 317 (Cal)). It has been held by the Supreme Court that t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....isled by the aforesaid notice. I am of the opinion that that is not a valid consideration. The question is not whether the petitioner was misled or not. The question is whether the notice was vague or not. The fact that the respondents had to make a statement before T. K. Basu J. to clarify the position that the notice was not intended to be used against the partnership firm indicated in my opinio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at Srikishendas Ghanshyamdas was merely a name-lender and did not lend money has not been stated. It has not been further stated what enquiries, if any, were made to form the belief. It is not clear also from the materials that the ITO did form actually any belief that there was omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully or truly all material facts. It is necessary in cases ....