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

1981 Supreme(Cal) 207

SUDHINDRA MOHAN GUHA, SABYASACHI MUKHARJEE
MOHENDRA J. THACKER AND CO – Appellant
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
A.K.ROY, B.K.Bagchi, B.K.NAHA, R.M.BAJORIA

SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J.

( 1 ) THESE two references are taken up together and disposed of by this common judgment.

( 2 ) IN these references, the first one under s. 256 (1) of the I. T. Act, 1961, and the second under s. 256 (2) of the I. T. Act, 1961, we are concerned with the assessment year 1964-65. The assessee filed the original return on June 25, 1965, and a revised return on December 5, 1967. The assessment was completed on the March 26, 1969. The assessee preferred an appeal before the AAC. It was urged before him that the demand notice dated May 30, 1969, was served on the assessee on June 3, 1969, and as such the assessment made was barred by time and should be cancelled. The AAC held that the assessment should have been completed by March 31, 1969. But the demand notice was dated on May 30, 1969, and it was received by the assessee on June 3, 1969. It would be appropriate in this case to refer to the order of the AAC. He observed in his order, inter alia, as follows:" I have carefully considered the appellant's contention with reference to the income-tax record and find them to be correct. The original return was filed on June 25, 1965. Revised return filed on December











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