TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (12) TMI 28
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Income-tax Act, 1961, had been issued to the assessee nor had it been validly served?" The assessment year 1964-65 is involved in the present reference. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The proceedings giving rise to the present reference arose out of reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act. There was a joint Hindu family known as M/s. Shital Prasad Kharag Prasad. This family consisted of Raja Sir Moti Chand, his younger brother, Gokul Chand, the sons of the latter and the sons of the pre-deceased brother, Shri Mangal Prasad. Raja Sir Moti Chand who was originally the karta of the family died in 1934 leaving no male issue and was succeeded by Shri Gokul Chand as karta, who also died in 1958. Ultimately, Shri ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cquired by the Land Acquisition Officer under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, by the award dated October 26, 1966, which was confirmed by the Collector on December 5, 1966. The Income-tax Officer charged the capital gains on the said property in the assessment year 1967-68 as he was of the opinion that the date of award of the Land Acquisition Collector is the relevant date for charging the capital gains. However, this part of the order of the Income-tax Officer was set aside by the Tribunal by the order dated June 20, 1974. The Income-tax Officer found that the capital gain is chargeable with reference to the date when possession of the property was transferred, in view of section 45 of the Act. The transfer of property in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cer did not accept the aforesaid contention of the assessee and passed the reassessment order which was challenged before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), by the assessee. In appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) found that in view of the undisputed facts that a partition has taken place in the joint Hindu family of the assessee, on April 27, 1976, by passing an order under section 171 of the Act and that Shri J.B. Gupta had died on August 13, 1974, notices under the Income-tax Act in respect of the income of the assessee were compulsorily to be served on all the adults, who were members of the family, immediately before the partition. This order has been confirmed by the Tribunal in appeal filed by the Revenue. Heard ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing officer. The case was decided in this factual background. To say the least there is no similarity between the facts of the case relied upon by learned counsel for the Revenue and the facts of the case in hand. In the case in hand there is no dispute with regard to the question that the reassessment notice was not signed by the officer concerned. Moreover, as noticed by the Calcutta High Court in that judgment there was no question of the validity of the mode of the issue of notice in that case. Therefore, the aforesaid ruling does not defend the case of the Department. The next case relied upon is CIT v. Rajbir Singh (HUF) [1998] 233 ITR 126 (P&H). It appears that learned standing counsel has cited the above case even without caring to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Tribunal on the question of issuance of a valid notice under section 148 of the Act and its service on Shri B.D. Agarwal, who represented Shri J.B. Gupta. It is not in dispute that Shri J.B. Gupta had died on August 13,1974. Therefore, notice under section 148 of the Act could not be validly served on Shri B.D. Agrawal on August 27, 1976. The authority of Shri B.D. Agrawal came to an end ipso facto on August 13, 1974, on account of death of Shri J.B. Gupta. It is settled law that the service of a valid notice under section 148 is the foundation for the initiation of reassessment proceedings and a condition precedent for the validity of the notice. The further fact is that the notice under section 148 was not served on the adult members of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he correct assessment year and should be issued to a particular assessee. The notice issued to the assessee in that case did not specify the capacity in which it was issued to one S, whether as individual or as "principal officer" or as a member of an association or body of individuals. The assessment was completed by the Income-tax Officer in the status of an association of persons consisting of S and some others. It was held that before assessing an association of persons, the notice should be addressed to the "principal officer" or a "member" thereof as required by section 282(2)(c), which was not done. Such a fundamental infirmity, it was held, could not be called a "technical objection" or a mere irregularity, such a vital infirmity co....