HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
S. Datta, C. N. Laik
B. K. GOOYEE - Appellant
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX - Respondent
I. T. Ref. 80 Of 1956
Decided On : FEBRUARY 05, 1965
INCOME TAX - NOTICE UNDER SECTION 34 - SIGNATURE OF INCOME TAX OFFICER - ESSENTIAL - JURISDICTION - WAIVER.
Fact of the Case:
The assessee was served with a notice under Section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, on 8-2-1951, for the encashment of High Denomination Notes, worth Rs. 14,000, in the year of account, calling upon the assessee to file a return, which was done on March 20, 1951. The notice was not signed by the Income-tax Officer. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner gave effect to the contention that the notice was invalid. The Appellate Tribunal took the other view and the assessee filed a reference.
Finding of the Court:
The notice under Section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, to be a proper, valid and legal notice, requires to be signed by the Income-tax Officer, non-compliance of which would make it bad and all the proceedings started thereafter would be without jurisdiction.
Issues: Whether the notice under Section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, is required to be signed by the Income-tax Officer?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A notice under Section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, is a condition precedent for the assumption of jurisdiction by the Income-tax Officer. 2. The notice under Section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, is not merely a procedural requirement. 3. Non-signing of a notice under Section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, does not come within the formula of an obvious clerical mistake.
Final Decision: The notice under Section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, to be a proper, valid and legal notice, requires to be signed by the Income-tax Officer, non-compliance of which would make it bad and all the proceedings started thereafter would be without jurisdiction.
( 1 ) THE facts of this Reference lie in a very narrow compass.
( 2 ) ON the 6th flay of March 1951 a notice by registered post was issued by the Income-tax Officer under Section 34 of the Income-Tax Act on the ground that certain incomes had escaped assessment. The said notice was served on the lawyer for the assessee. On receipt of the said notice by the lawyer, the assessee filed his Return, and thereafter an assessment was made by the Income-tax Officer upon the basis of the said notice under Section 34. Thereafter, the assessee being dissatisfied with the order, took the matter to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner where for the first time the assessee took the point that the notice under Section 34 was bad in law inasmuch as it did not bear the signature of the Income-tax Officer, for a proper notice under Section 34 is a condition precedent in the exercise of jurisdiction by the Income-tax Officer
( 3 ) IT transpired before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that the Income-tax Officer had taken permission of the Commissioner of Income-tax before issuing notice under Section 34 in compliance with the mandatory provisions of one of the sub-sections of the same section. It further transpired that the office copy of the same notice was not signed by the Income-tax Officer. In these circumstances the Appellate Assistant Commissioner negatived the contention of the assessee. This matter, however, did not rest there. The assessee look the matter to the Tribunal The Tribunal, again, affirmed the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on this point.
( 4 ) THEREAFTER, an application under Section 66 (1) was made, and this question was referred to us.
( 5 ) THE relevant provisions of the Income-tax Act are as follows:--Section 34 (1) (a) If the Income-tax Officer has reason to believe that by reason of the omission or failure on the part of an assessee to make a return of his income under Section 22 for any year or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that year, income, profit or gains chargeable to income-tax have escaped assessment for that year, or have under-assessed, or assessed at too low a rate, or have been made the subject of excessive reliefs under Act or excessive loss or depreciations, allowance has been computed, or (b) Notwithstanding there has been no omission or failure as mentioned in Clause (a) on the part of the assessee the Income-tax Officer has in consequence of information in his possession reason to believe that income profits or gains chargeable to income-tax have escaped assessment for any year, or have been under-assessed, or assessed at too low a rate, or have been made the subject of excessive relief under this Act, or that excessive loss or depreciation allowance has been computed. He may in cases falling under Clause (a) at any time within 8 years and in cases falling under Clause (b) at any time within 4 years of the end of that year, serve on the assessee, or if the assessee is a company, on the principal officer thereof, a notice containing all or any of the requirements which may be included in a notice under Sub-section 2 of Section 22 and may proceed to assess, re-assess such income, profits or gains or re-compute the loss or depreciation allowance; and the provisions of this Act shall, so far as may be, apply accordingly as if the notices were a notice issued under that sub section. " section 22 (1 ). The Income-tax Officer, shall, on or before the first day of May in each year, give notice, by publication in the prescribed manner requiring every person whose total income during the previous year exceeded, the maximum amount which is not chargeable to income-tax to furnish within such period not being less than 60 days as may be specified in the notice, a return, in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner, setting forth (along with such other particulars as may be required by the notice) his total income and
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.