TMI Blog1981 (8) TMI 108X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r/w s. 147(a) of the Act were issued for the asst. yrs. 1956-57 and 1957-58. The ITO recorded reasons u/s 148 on 25th Jan, 1965, reproduced below, and sought the Commr.'s approval: Assessment year 1956-57 The assessee had a fleet of ten buses during the a/c year relevant for the asst. yr. 1956-57. No return of income in compliance with notice u/s 22(1) has been filed. Income of the assessee during the asst. yr. 1956-57 on the basis of enquiries is estimated at Rs. 60,000 which has escaped assessment. Assessment year 1957-58 The assessee had a fleet of ten buses during the a/c year relevant for the asst. yr. 1957-58. No return of income in compliance with notice u/s 22(1) has been filed. Income of the assessee during the assessment year 1957-58 on basis of enquiries is estimated at Rs. 60,000 which has escaped assessment". From copies of the proposals which have been filed by the revenues, on our requisition, it is noticed that it was a new case and reopening was resorted to u/s.148 r/w s. 147(a) of the Act. Notices were, however, served on one Sukhdev Parshad on 8th March, 1965. According to the ITO, who vide his orders dt. 11th March, 1969 raised assessment at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cisely and supported by duly sworn affidavit." It has been deposed in the affidavit that the business carried on in the same of NMTC was discontinued on 6th May, 1959 and that entity was also dissolved on the same day. It has also been stated that the notice dt. 27th Feb, 1965 u/s 148 were delivered on 8th March, 1965 to one Sukhdev Parshad who had nothing to do with the entity of NMTC. As a doubt has arisen whether Tehal Singh was one of the partners/members of the NMTC or not, the assessee submitted on 27th Jan, 1981 amended memorandum of appeals which were signed by Kasturi Lal who was admittedly partner/member of the NMTC. Alongwith the affidavit of Tehal Singh, another affidavit in terms of r. 10 duly sworn by Kasturi Lal has also been filed. This affidavit is identical in terms with the affidavit of Tehal Singh, referred to above, on our directions, the revenue vide its letters dt. 23rd Feb, 1981 submitted the reasons recorded by the ITO, reproduced above, and stated in para 2 as follows: " The Constitution of the URF M/s Narwana Motor Transport Co. kept in focus while issuing the notice was as below : 1. Pt. Nauria Ram, Samana 2. M/s Beant Singh Gurcharan Singh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tices u/s 148 were served only on Sukhdev Parshad and further that while issuing notices the constitution of NMTC which was in focus of the ITO was of nine parties, names of which have been reproduced above, we directed the revenue to submit as to what connection Sukhdev Parshad had with the NMTC and/or whether he was a partner member of the said firm/association at the relevant time. In compliance to such directions, Sh. M.P. Singh, for the revenue, has submitted in writing that: "...........The assessing ITO has also intimated that it cannot be ascertained as to whether or not Shri Sukhdev Parshad was a partner of the URF or a member of the AOP at the relevant time". Shri Gupta adverting to the letter of the revenue dt. 28th Feb, 1981 contended that Sukhdev Parshad was admittedly not a partner of the URF or a member of the AOP of the NMTC. It was urged by him that the revenue not only had failed to prove that Sukhdev Parshad was on 8th March, 1965 an authorised person to receive the notices but on the plain admission that his connection could not be ascertained it must be accepted that there was no valid service of the notices u/s 148 of the Act. which was the primary condi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the firm or association may be served on any person who was a partner (not being a minor) or member of the association, as the case may be, immediately before its dissolution". 7. From the above, we notice that sub-s. (2) of the s. 283 provides that there a firm or other association of persons is dissolved, notices under the Act can be serviced only on a person who was a partner or a member of AOP. Sukhdev Parshad neither being a member of the association nor a partner of the firm was devoid of any authority to receive notices u/s 148 and, therefore, services of notices on him were invalid, more particularly when he was not authorised to act as an agent of the assessee on 8th March, 1965. 8. Shri Singh, arguing on behalf of the revenue, submitted that Sukhdev Parshad on whom the notices u/s 148 of the Act were serviced on 8th March, 1965, also received a notice u/s 23(2) of the old Act on 16th April, 1959 for the asst. yr. 1958-59 and that he also deposited Rs. 125.44 as passenger-tax and goods tax on behalf of the assessee on 21st July, 1961. On these facts, he urged that Sukhdev Parshad should be taken as an agent of the assessee duly authorised to receive notices on its ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
