TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (6) TMI 18
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the income of the petitioner for the aforesaid periods escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act. In the last paragraph of those two notices, although it was written that those notices were being issued after obtaining necessary satisfaction of the Commissioner of Income-tax/Central Board of Revenue but thereafter the said paragraph was deleted. There is no dispute that pursuant to the aforesaid notices dated February 11,1983, the petitioner had filed returns for those two years. Subsequently, the Income-tax Officer concerned issued fresh notices dated March 29, 1983, for those two assessment years and in paragraph 2 of those notices, it was specifically stated that those were issued after obtaining necessary satisfa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ade more than four years earlier without taking the required satisfaction of the Commissioner of Income-tax/Central Board of Revenue. Mr. Mitra contends, in view of such mistake, the Income-tax Officer concerned after taking satisfaction from the aforesaid authority issued the subsequent two notices dated March 29, 1983. According to Mr. Mitra, if any return is submitted by the petitioner in obedience to the earlier notice dated February 11, 1983, those are to be ignored, inasmuch as those returns were filed pursuant to an illegal demand. Mr. Mitra, thus, contends that there was no illegality in initiating fresh proceeding by giving fresh notice dated March 29, 1983, after complying with the formalities required under the Income-tax Act. In....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tice under section 34 on the assumption that there had been an omission or failure on the part of the assessee to make a return of his income under section 22, and on that ground the assessment under section 34 was held to be invalid. In the said case, the Supreme Court further held that there was no warrant in the Income-tax Act for treating returns as "voluntary returns" and "non-voluntary returns" and whatever be the impelling cause or motive, if a return, otherwise valid, is filed by an assessee before the receipt of a valid notice under section 34, it is to be treated as a return within the meaning of section 22(3) of the 1922 Act. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the case, it is clear that when the petitioner filed r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ision cannot have any application to the facts of the present case. In the case of Ashok Kumar Dixit [1992] 198 ITR 669 (All), during the pendency of a proceeding in pursuance of a notice issued earlier against the petitioner under section 148, a second notice under section 148 had been issued; but it does not appear from the judgment passed in the said case whether the assessee filed any return pursuant to such notice. Under such circumstances, the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court was of the view that only because the earlier notice had been issued, that by itself in law cannot be a bar for issuing the second notice. Therefore, the said decision cannot have any application to a case, where pursuant to the first notice a return h....