Jurisdictional objection under section 64(3) failed on limitation, so no reference to the Commissioner was required.

A jurisdictional objection under section 64(3) was effective only when communicated to the Income-tax Officer within the prescribed time; posting the objection was insufficient because the post office acted for the assessee, not the officer. The objection was therefore time-barred and ineffective. A reference to the Commissioner was not required where the objection failed at the threshold on limitation and no surviving jurisdictional issue remained for decision. The refusal to hear the assessee on limitation did not amount to actionable breach of natural justice, since the point was purely legal, fully considered, and no prejudice was shown. The petition was dismissed with costs.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the challenge to the Income-tax Officer's jurisdiction under the second proviso to section 64(3) of the Income-tax Act was within time when the objection was communicated after the extended period; (ii) Whether the Income-tax Officer was bound to refer the jurisdictional objection to the Commissioner despite holding it to be time-barred; (iii) Whether the refusal to hear the assessee on the limitation objection violated natural justice.

Issue (i): Whether the challenge to the Income-tax Officer's jurisdiction under the second proviso to section 64(3) of the Income-tax Act was within time when the objection was communicated after the extended period.

Analysis: The relevant requirement was that the assessee must call the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer in question within the time allowed. The Court held that the objection is not taken until it is communicated to the Income-tax Officer, and posting the letter is not enough. The post office was the agent of the assessee, not of the Income-tax Officer, and the objection reached the officer only after the extended time had expired.

Conclusion: The challenge to jurisdiction was time-barred and therefore ineffective.

Issue (ii): Whether the Income-tax Officer was bound to refer the jurisdictional objection to the Commissioner despite holding it to be time-barred.

Analysis: The reference mechanism under section 64(3) operates only when a jurisdictional objection is validly raised and requires determination on merits. If the objection is rejected at the threshold as barred by limitation, there is no surviving issue for reference and nothing to send to the Commissioner for determination.

Conclusion: No reference to the Commissioner was required.

Issue (iii): Whether the refusal to hear the assessee on the limitation objection violated natural justice.

Analysis: The Court accepted the general rule that a party affected by a quasi-judicial order should ordinarily be heard, but held that no prejudice was caused here. The only possible representation would have been on the legal question of limitation, which was fully argued before the Court, and the objection was found barred as a matter of law. Since no useful purpose would be served by remitting the matter for hearing, the complaint of breach of natural justice did not assist the assessee.

Conclusion: No actionable violation of natural justice was made out.

Final Conclusion: The jurisdictional objection failed on limitation, the referral contention had no basis, and the petition was dismissed with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: A jurisdictional objection under section 64(3) is taken only when communicated to the Income-tax Officer within the prescribed time, and a time-barred objection does not oblige a reference to the Commissioner.

---