TMI Blog1993 (2) TMI 125X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were served on the Individual status in response to which returns filed declaring individual income. There are contentions against additions made but I am not dealing with the same because I am allowing the assessee's appeals on the short ground that notices issued on 18th March, 1985 under s. 148 of the Act in respect of asst. yrs. 1976-77 and 1977-78 are vague, inasmuch as, even when it was known to the ITO that the assessee enjoyed two status; one that of Individual and the other HUF, the notice gave no indication as to in relation to which status resort was being taken to notice under s. 148 r/w the provisions of s. 147(a) of the Act. 2. Copies of notices dt. 18th March, 1985 for both the years are given, which do not even give nece ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o HUF headed by Ch. Kesho Dass as is evident from the subject of letter dt. 10th Dec., 1987. The ITO has further mentioned that even after the lapse of about two years no information was furnished by the appellant. Various notices were served but of no avail. According to the ITO on 7th Feb., 1989 the appellant's counsel made request that he wanted to know thebasis of proceedings under s. 148. The ITO came to the conclusion that with these tactics the appellant is unnecessarily delaying the matter. The ITO has further mentioned that he had informed the counsel of the appellant that no further time will be allowed. On 21st Feb., 1989 a written explanation was also filed but information/documents/evidence on all the points as called for under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... P.V. Doshi vs. CIT 1977 CTR (Guj) 683 : (1978) 113 ITR 22(Guj) 6. For the respondent Shri Gursharan Singh, Departmental Representative took me to the assessment orders as also the Dy. CIT(A)'s decision and submitted that in view of the assessee's counsel's concession that the returns filed on 16th June, 1982 be considered as in response to notices dt. 18th March, 1985, the assessee could have no grievance. 7. I have looked into the judgments cited for the assessee closely. In the first case i.e. of Rama Devi Agarwalla Ors. vs. CIT, notice under s. 148 of the Act to R.D.A. others was issued. It could not be ascertained who was the assessee. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court held that if notice is ambiguous or defective, it is invalid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
