TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appellate Court Upholds Validity of Income-tax Act Notices</h1> <h3>Income-Tax Officer, District III (I), ´I ´ Ward, And Others Versus BN. Bhattacharya</h3> Income-Tax Officer, District III (I), ´I ´ Ward, And Others Versus BN. Bhattacharya - [1978] 112 ITR 423, 1977 CTR 47 Issues involved: Challenge to notices u/s 34(1)(a) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 for various assessment years, service of notices by affixation, validity of service under law.Judgment Summary:Challenge to Notices u/s 34(1)(a): The case involved challenging notices issued u/s 34(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act for multiple assessment years due to alleged income escaping assessment. The revenue believed the respondent had undisclosed income based on bank accounts, cash transactions, car ownership, and foreign travel. The respondent claimed non-service of notices for certain years, but the trial judge found notices for some years were properly served. The appellate court upheld the service for all years based on the evidence presented.Service of Notices by Affixation: The trial judge held that notices for certain years were not properly served by affixation as required by law. The serving officer's identity was not disclosed, and no independent record was produced. However, upon further examination of the process server's report and Income-tax Officer's records, it was found that proper efforts were made to serve the notices by affixation. The court concluded that the notices were validly served in accordance with the law.Conclusion: The appellate court set aside the trial judge's decision, ruling that the notices for all the assessment years were served in compliance with the law. The appeal was allowed, and the rule was discharged with no order as to costs. The operation of the order was stayed until the end of the Christmas vacation as requested by the respondent. Judge M. M. Dutt concurred with the decision.
TaxTMI 