CHAKRAVARTTI, C. J.

( 1 ) BY the judgment under appeal before us Sinha J. , has decided two questions, but as the application before him could have been disposed of on a single ground and the present appeal can be disposed of likewise, it is really not necessary to consider the question arising out of the second ground. Mr. Meyer, however, invited us to decide the second question as well, because it had been canvassed before the learned trial Judge and because, he said, the Department needed a decision for its guidance. We shall accede to his request.

( 2 ) THE facts are these. The respondent was one of three partners of an unregistered firm, carrying on business at 12 Dalhousie Square, Calcutta, under the name and style of Dyes and Chemical Agency. It is said, that the firm did business only from, 1st of April 1940 up to 31st of March, 1944 and that a notice of its dissolution was given to the Income-tax Department on or about 14th of January, 1947. The Department did not admit or deny receipt of the notice, but since it is seeking to justify the assessment as an assessment on a dissolved firm, the question whether a notice of dissolution was Or was not given is not material. It does not appear whether the firm had previously been assessed to income-tax, but towards the end of 1944, the Income-tax Officer, District III (1) Calcutta, came to be of opinion that the firm's income for the assessment year 1943-44 had escaped assessment. Acting on that view, the Income-tax Officer issued a notice under Section 34 of the Income-tax Act on 25th of November, 1944 to the respondent. He was described as "m. L. Goswami, Esqr. , Partner of Messrs. Dyes and Chemical Agency'' and the income which had been discovered to have escaped assessment was described as "your income". The notice ended by requiring the respondent to deliver to the Income-tax Officer by a certain date a return of "your total income and total world income assessable for the said year ending 31st March, 1944. '' It is said that a similar notice was addressed to another partner of the firm, named B. Rule Das Gupta, in similar terms, but no notice was issued to the third partner, P. C. Mukherji.

( 3 ) THE notice was received by the respondent on 30th of November, 1944, but he paid no attention to it. B. Rule Das Gupta,' on the other hand, complied with the notice served on him and filed) a return of the firm's income for the year; concerned, showing, however, a loss of Rs. 1,189/-, The Income-tax Officer did not believe that the firm had suffered loss and he determined the total income at Rs, 45,101/ -. The assessment he made was an-assessment on the firm, Dyes and Chemical Agency, which name was given as the name of the assessee. The tax computed was Rs. 13,264-1-0.

( 4 ) ON the basis of that assessment, a Demand" Notice was directed to be issued to the firm and as-far as it appears from the record, a notice was served. In what manner it was served does not, however, appear.

( 5 ) THE assessment was made on 12th of December, 1947. As no payment was made,, the Income-tax Officer, on 30th of March, 1949, forwarded a certificate under Section 46 (2) of the Income-tax Act to the Collector, 24-Parganas. The certificate was a certificate against the firm. On 31st of March, 1949, the Certificate Officer signed and filed his own certificate under the Public Demands Recovery Act which also was a certificate against the firm. Notice under Section 7 of the Public Demands Recovery Act was next issued, but it came back un-served with the report that the certificate-debtor, namely, the firm, was not traceable. The inability to effect service on the certificate-debtor was reported to the Income-tax Officer on 28th of December, 1950 and the usual request for the correct address and the present whereabouts of the certificate-debtor was made. For a while, the Income-tax Officer appears to have hesitated in taking a decision and thought that he would, in the-first instance, issue Notice

Click Here to Read the rest of this document