https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292556 Section 64 of the Income-tax Act, 1922 treated the Income-tax Officer at the principal place of business and the officer for the branch area as having concurrent, not exclusive, jurisdiction over assessable income. The text also notes that reasonable opportunity to produce the branch accounts was afforded first at Calcutta and then at Cawnpore, where the books were believed to be available, but no sufficient cause was shown for the failure to produce them at Cawnpore. The stated effect is that the assessee's objections on opportunity, sufficient cause, and exclusive jurisdiction were rejected. en-us Thu, 26 Mar 1925 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 31 Dec 2020 10:10:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292556 Section 64 of the Income-tax Act, 1922 treated the Income-tax Officer at the principal place of business and the officer for the branch area as having concurrent, not exclusive, jurisdiction over assessable income. The text also notes that reasonable opportunity to produce the branch accounts was afforded first at Calcutta and then at Cawnpore, where the books were believed to be available, but no sufficient cause was shown for the failure to produce them at Cawnpore. The stated effect is that the assessee's objections on opportunity, sufficient cause, and exclusive jurisdiction were rejected. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 26 Mar 1925 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292556