TMI Blog1970 (5) TMI 28X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the present case, were rightly held to have commenced with the making of the orders contained in annexures "A-1" to "A-5". So far as the year 1363F. was concerned the date of the last instalment was September 19, 1958. According to annexure "A-5" the Sub-Divisional Officer, Lakhimpur, made an order on October 1, 1959, with regard to the demand for that year. The High Court found that the Deputy Commissioner had made an endorsement on October 5, 1959. As the order was made on October 1, 1959, it was beyond one year from September 19, 1958. In the appeal filed by the departmental authorities it has not been shown in what manner the High Court was in error in holding that the proceedings for recovery of tax and penalty for the year 1363 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essments relating to all the years on the ground that proceedings for recovery had not commenced within the time prescribed by the Act. The departmental authorities preferred a special appeal to a Division Bench and during the pendency of the appeal sought to produce additional evidence to show that proceedings relating to recovery had commenced within time. The Division Bench admitted additional evidence and after taking that into consideration held that proceedings were not barred in respect of the demand relating to the years 1360 F. to 1362F. It was, however, found that proceedings for recovery of tax and penalty for the year 1363F. were barred by time. The assessee as also the Deputy Commissioner, Kheri, have preferred appeals challeng ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said to commence only when some actual process was issued under the provisions of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (I of 1951). Now, as regards the years 1360 F. and 1361 F. the evidence which was admitted by the Division Bench showed that the Deputy Commissioner, who was the assessing authority, had made orders directing the Tahsildar to realize various sums as arrears of land revenue. Thus, according to the High Court, the proceedings for recovery commenced with the making of these orders, (annexures "A-1" to "A-5"). It was pointed out that these orders were made on various dates ranging between October 9, 1960, to December 2, 1960. These dates were within one year from June 28, 1960, which was the last date of i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orwarded by the Income-tax Officer to the Collector for recovery of the dues the recovery proceedings commence from that point of time. Some of these have been referred to in Kishorilal v. Tirloki Nath and it is pointless to refer to them again. In our judgment there is hardly much difference between the provisions of section 32 of the Act and the corresponding provisions of section 46 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. Both these statutes relate to taxation of income and the provisions in question are in pari materia although the words employed may not be exactly the same. The proceedings for recovery, therefore, in the present case, were rightly held to have commenced with the making of the orders contained in annexures "A-1" to "A-5" ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
