B. P. JEEVAN REDDY, CJ.

( 1 ) THE Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, has stated the following two questions under Section 256 (1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :

" (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that there was valid service of notices under Section 147 (a) of the Income-tax act, 1961, for the assessment year 1949-50 and under Section 34 (1) (a) of the Indian Income-tax act, 1922, for the assessment years 1952-53 to 1955-56 on the assessee-Hindu undivided family ? (2) If the answer to the first question is in the negative and in favour of the assessee, whether the assessment made in pursuance of the said notices for the five assessment years 1949-50, 1952-53 to 1955-56 are valid in law?"

( 2 ) THE assessee is a Hindu undivided family represented by its karta, Kailash Chand Jain. During the years 1949 to 1955, it carried on banking business under the name and style of Mansa ram and Sons, with its head office at Dehradun and branches at Mussoorie, Saharanpur, rishikesh and Hardwar. In this reference, we are concerned with the validity of the reassessment orders made under Section 147 for the years 1949-50, 1952-53, 1953-54, 1954-55 and 1955-56. The ground upon which the reassessment orders are said to be bad is that the notices under section 34 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were not served upon the assessee. Inasmuch as such service is a condition precedent to a valid assessment, it is urged that reassessments made are totally illegal and void. For a proper appreciation of the question, it is necessary to state a few more facts as they appear from the statement of the case and the Tribunals order. In the year 1955, there was a huge rush at the assessees bank. The assessee could not meet all the demands of its customers. Insolvency petitions were filed by the creditors wherein the District Judge, Saharanpur, appointed the official receivers at Saharanpur and Dehradun to be interim official receivers of the entire properties of the assessee-Hindu undivided family and to administer them to the best advantage of the creditors with full powers of administration (vide order dated July 26, 1955, in insolvency^case No. 1 of 1955 ). In pursuance of this order, the interim official receivers took charge and continued as such till July 5, 1968. There was another Insolvency Petition No. 8 of 1971, in which the assessee-Hindu undivided family was adjudged insolvent by the District judge, Dehradun, by his order dated April 22, 1976. During these proceedings, the Official receiver, Dehradun, was again appointed as interim receiver of the properties of the assessee and, in this capacity, he again functioned as interim official receiver of the properties of the assessee from 1971 till April 23, 1976 and, thereafter, as the official receiver.

( 3 ) WITH respect to the assessment years 1952-53, 1953-54, 1954-55 and 1955-56, notices under section 34 (1) of the 1922 Act were issued on January 7, 1960. The notices were issued to the assessee-Hindu undivided family represented by its karta. These notices were served on the interim official receiver, Dehradun, on January 8, 1960. With respect to the assessment year 1949-50, notices under Section 147/148 of the 1961 Act were issued on February 28, 1966, and were served upon the clerk of the interim official receiver on March 3, 1966. In response to the notices served upon him, the receiver filed returns for the four assessment years 1952-53 to 1955-56 on November 7, 1960, November 10, 1960 and November 19, 1960. Inasmuch as the interim receiver had no concern with the said assessment years, the returns filed by him were not taken into account. Thereupon, returns were filed by the karta of the assessee-Hindu undivided family on May 22, 1971. It is on the basis of these returns that the reassessment orders were passed. So far as assessment year 1949-50 is co

Click Here to Read the rest of this document