Assessments deemed invalid for exceeding time limit, original notices upheld as valid. Annulled assessments, allowed appeals.

The tribunal concluded that the original notices issued under section 148 were valid and duly served. Assessments completed based on fresh notices issued later were deemed invalid as they were completed beyond the permissible time and while the original proceedings were still pending. As a result, the assessments were annulled, and both appeals filed by the assessee were allowed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity and jurisdiction of notices issued under section 148.
2. Competence of Shri Rishabhdas Jain to file appeals.
3. Authority of Shri Hulasmal Chopra as Receiver.
4. Timeliness and validity of the assessments completed based on the issued notices.
5. Legal implications of issuing multiple notices under section 148.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity and Jurisdiction of Notices Issued Under Section 148:
The primary issue revolved around the validity and jurisdiction of the notices issued under section 148 on 9-10-1973, 31-3-1980, and 17-3-1981 for the assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73. The counsel for the assessee argued that the first set of notices issued on 9-10-1973 were valid and duly served, as evidenced by certified copies and order sheet entries. The legal position was that once valid notices under section 148 were issued, the proceedings initiated must be taken to their logical end, either by completing the assessments or by dropping the proceedings. The issuance of fresh notices under section 148 while the original proceedings were still pending was deemed without jurisdiction and invalid.

2. Competence of Shri Rishabhdas Jain to File Appeals:
Shri Jaidev Jain intervened, claiming that Shri Rishabhdas Jain was not competent to file the appeals as the original notices were not validly served and the Receiver, Shri Hulasmal Chopra, had no authority to authorize Shri Rishabhdas Jain to file the appeals on behalf of the firm. However, it was clarified that Shri Hulasmal Chopra, as the appointed Receiver, had the authority to receive notices and authorize actions on behalf of the firm.

3. Authority of Shri Hulasmal Chopra as Receiver:
The issue of whether Shri Hulasmal Chopra had the authority to receive notices and authorize actions on behalf of the firm was addressed. It was established that Shri Hulasmal Chopra was appointed as Receiver on 28-7-1972, and his authority expired only on 22-10-1986. Therefore, the notices served on him were valid, and he had the authority to authorize Shri Rishabhdas Jain to file the returns and appeals.

4. Timeliness and Validity of the Assessments Completed Based on the Issued Notices:
The assessments for the years 1971-72 and 1972-73 were completed based on fresh notices issued on 31-3-1980 and 17-3-1981, respectively. The first appellate authorities had set aside these assessments for further examination, rejecting the plea that the assessments had become time-barred. However, it was concluded that the assessments got barred by time as the original proceedings initiated under section 148 were still pending, and the fresh notices issued were invalid. Therefore, the assessments completed on 29-3-1984 and 20-2-1985 were annulled.

5. Legal Implications of Issuing Multiple Notices Under Section 148:
The legal argument presented was that issuing multiple notices under section 148 for the same assessment years while the original proceedings were still pending was not permissible. The remedy available to the revenue was to issue notices under section 142(1) or complete the assessments under section 144 within the time allowed by law. The issuance of fresh notices under section 148 did not revive the assessments that had become barred by limitation.

Conclusion:
The tribunal concluded that the original notices issued on 9-10-1973 were valid and duly served. The assessments for the years 1971-72 and 1972-73 completed on the basis of fresh notices issued on 31-3-1980 and 17-3-1981 were invalid as they were completed beyond the permissible time and while the original proceedings were still pending. Consequently, the assessments dated 29-3-1984 and 20-2-1985 were annulled, and both appeals filed by the assessee were allowed.

---