SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1972 Supreme(Cal) 46

SABYASACHI MUKHARJEE
MADANLAL CHOWDHURY – Appellant
Versus
INCOME-TAX OFFICER – Respondent


SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an application challenging a notice under Section 148 of the I. T. Act, 1961. The notice appears at page 47, annex. "g". The notice was addressed to Messrs. Surajmal Behadurmull, I, 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, 1956. During that period it is also said that there was disruption of the smaller HUF which formed into a partnership firm. That position, however, had not been accepted by the Tribunal. The notice having been issued, the partnership firm made an application challenging the notice. The income-tax department made a statement before T. K. Basu J. that the said notice was not intended to be used against the partnership firm. Two points were urged in support of this application; one was that the notice was vague and, as such, invalid. Secondly, it was contended that the ITO did not have materials to form any belief and he did not in fact form any belief. It was contend



Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top