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

1965 Supreme(Cal) 31

C.N.LAIK, S.DATTA
B. K. GOOYEE – Appellant
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX – Respondent


DATTA, J.

( 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




































































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