TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1971 (11) TMI 17
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... which had its commercial activity within the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer, Dindigul. The said officer (at Dindigul) on information about the association of the writ petitioner in the combine, as above, after assessing the association issued a notice under section 29 of the Income-tax Act 1922, calling upon the petitioner to pay an ascertained sum towards the tax liability of "V. Muthuswami Pillai & Co.", in which the petitioner was a member. In the said notice dated September 29, 1950, the petitioner was informed that if he intended to appeal against the assessment he was at liberty to do so under sub-section (3) of section 30 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. It is common ground that the petitioner did not file any such appeal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d that though an agreement was not written UP, yet, there was an understanding as between the members as to the shares in which they should enjoy the returns of the commercial activity. Finally, the petitioner had admitted in the enquiry that he was a member of an abkari combine with one Manickam Pillai of Musiri, who was another member. The Income-tax Officer, Tiruchirapalli, found that the account books disclosed before him in the enquiry under section 34 that the petitioner was a member of "V. Muthuswami Pillai & Co." In these circumstances, he reopened his original order dated December 30, 1946, and passed a revised order on January 31, 1952, in and by which he determined the status of the petitioner as a "member" of the above combine. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to have been served on him. The Income-tax Officer, Dindigul, pursuant to his earlier assessment, which has become final in the eye of law as against "V. Muthuswami Pillai & Co." called upon Messrs. Modern Coffee Works, Jawahar Bazaar, Karur, not to pay any amounts payable by the said coffee works to the petitioner, and served on the coffee works the usual notice under section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In the said notice, the Income-tax Officer, Dindigul, noted that a sum of Rs. 74,287.63 is due from the petitioner for and on behalf of Messrs. V. Muthuswami Pillai & Co., Dindigul, and called upon the coffee works not to pay to him any amount due by them to the writ petitioner up to the amount of arrears shown above. The latter pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Mr. Kesava Ayyangar is that, as the original assessment proceedings as against the association of persons was not made in his client's presence, there has been a failure of natural justice. This argument, on the face of it, is certainly attractive. But the gravamen of his charge is that the principles of natural justice have been violated because he ought to have been heard by the Income-tax Officer, Dindigul, when he passed the first order of assessment against the association of persons and that opportunity not having been given to him, the original order from which sprang the notice under section 29 dated September 29, 1950, is a nullity and has to be ignored for every and all purposes. I am unable to agree. As I have already stated....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d, or that there has not been any effective opportunity given to the petitioner to prove his case that he was not a member of the association. Therefore, I am of the view that having regard to the facts of this case wherein the petitioner did have an ample opportunity to prove that the revenue's case was wrong and that he, having failed, at every such opportunity, to establish that he was not a member of the association, there has not been a violation of the principles of natural justice. The rule of adequacy is satisfied in the instant case, and even so, the rule of full opportunity. The first point is that the notice in question is issued by his Dindigul officer and it contains a demand for the payment of a much larger sum than is actu....