Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether proceedings under section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 were validly initiated against the assessee for the assessment year 1956-57 when a notice under section 22(2) had already been served on the court receiver and returns had been filed in response, and whether the assessment completed thereunder was within time.
Analysis: The notice under section 22(2) was rightly served on the court receiver because the joint family property was in the receiver's control. The returns submitted in response to that notice were received by the Income-tax Officer, who then issued a notice under section 23(2) in the name of the court receiver, but did not take the matter to completion. In these circumstances, the case could not be treated as one where no return had been filed or where income had escaped assessment. Even if the returns were assumed to be defective or invalid, that by itself would not justify resort to section 34 when the assessment proceedings pursuant to the original notice had not been disposed of.
Conclusion: Proceedings under section 34 were without jurisdiction and were not validly initiated against the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a valid notice under section 22(2) has been served and returns have been filed and acted upon by the department, incomplete or irregular returns do not permit the Income-tax Officer to invoke section 34 on the footing that income has escaped assessment.