Court clarifies jurisdiction issue, deems notice illegal. Expenses hinge on factual findings. Levies not income affecting tax assessment.

The court held that the Income-tax Officer lacked jurisdiction to issue a notice to the assessee, as the relevant authority for such action was the Assistant Commissioner. The notice served by the Income-tax Officer was deemed illegal, impacting the timeliness of filings and the validity of returns. The court clarified that certain expenses, such as commission for bidis and pagdi money, hinged on factual determinations and Commissioner's findings. The treatment of goushala levy and Rashtriya fund levy as income did not alter the assessment of income-tax, emphasizing the non-registration of the assessee as a firm.

---

---

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of Income-tax Officer in issuing notice under S. 22 (2)
2. Delegation of powers under Income-tax Act
3. Extension of time for filing return under S. 22 (2)
4. Validity of return filed before specified date
5. Allowability of commission for sale of bidis under S. 10 (2) (ix)
6. Allowability of pagdi money under S. 10 (2) (ix)
7. Treatment of goushala levy and Rashtriya fund levy as income

Analysis:

Issue 1: Jurisdiction of Income-tax Officer
The court found that the Income-tax Officer did not have the authority to serve a notice on the assessee as per the relevant provisions of the Income-tax Act. The powers were directed to be exercised by the Assistant Commissioner, making the notice served by the Income-tax Officer illegal. The court affirmed this by answering the first part of question No. 1 in the affirmative.

Issue 2: Delegation of Powers
The second question regarding the delegation of powers was not argued before the court, and it was noted that an opinion on this question was not desired by the parties, indicating that it was not a contentious issue in the case.

Issue 3: Extension of Time for Filing Return
The court clarified that the notice issued did not make the return due, and thus, the application for registration of the firm was within the period allowed by law. The court held that as the notice was illegal, it did not cause the return to become due, supporting the timeliness of the application for registration.

Issue 4: Validity of Return Filed Before Specified Date
The court addressed the argument related to the validity of the return filed before the specified date and concluded that the application for registration was within time, considering the illegality of the notice issued by the Income-tax Officer.

Issue 5 & 6: Allowability of Commission and Pagdi Money
The court discussed the allowability of commission for the sale of bidis and pagdi money under the relevant sections of the Income-tax Act. It was noted that the decision on these issues depended on factual determinations, and the court could not interfere with the Commissioner's findings unless there was a clear error of law.

Issue 7: Treatment of Levies as Income
Regarding the treatment of goushala levy and Rashtriya fund levy as income, the court emphasized that the decision on these matters did not necessarily impact the assessment of income-tax dealt with in the Commissioner's order. The court clarified that the questions raised in the case did not alter the fact that the assessees were not a registered firm.

In conclusion, the court addressed various legal issues concerning the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer, timeliness of filings, and the allowability of certain expenses under the Income-tax Act. The judgment provided detailed reasoning for each issue raised, ensuring a comprehensive analysis of the legal aspects involved in the case.

---