1964 (9) TMI 82

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....46, the accounting period being the year ending Chet Badi 15th, Smt. year 2001. On 29th March, 1954, a notice was issued under section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, by the Income-tax Officer, B-Ward, Amritsar. The process server went to the assessee's shop for service on 30th March, 1954, but he could not effect service because the karta of the assessee family was not present. The process server reported to the Income-tax Officer on the same day that the assessee had refused to accept service. Thereupon the Income-tax Officer on 30th March, 1954, sent a notice by registered post and also ordered substituted service by directing the process server to affix the same at the address of the assessee. There, service was effected by t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Code as to the affixture of a copy thereof in some conspicuous place in the court-house has been correspondingly fulfilled, the service of the notice would not be valid. In view of the above decision there could be no further room for argument but Mr. D.N. Awasthy who appears for the Commissioner of Income-tax contends that in a very recent decision of the Supreme Court it has been laid down that a notice under section 34 on the facts and circumstances which were very similar to those of the present case could be served even after the expiry of the period of 8 years. According to that decision the clear intention of the legislature in enacting section 4 of the Indian Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1959, is to save the validity of a notice i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....fore the income-tax authorities the only question that was agitated was whether the notice which had been served by affixation without any copy having been pasted outside the office of the Income-tax Officer etc. could be regarded to be a valid notice within the prescribed period. It being admitted that the notice which was sent by registered post was served after the period of 8 years had expired, it was taken for granted that if the notice was served beyond the period of 8 years or if it had not been served in accordance with law within that period, the proceedings under section 34 could not be regarded to have been validly served within 8 years as was the case of the departmental authorities would be quite different from saying that ther....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nal. The section does not say so and there is no reason why we should construe the expression 'arising out of such order' in a manner unwarranted by the ordinary grammatical construction of that expression. This court has no jurisdiction to decide questions which have not been referred by the Tribunal. If the Tribunal does not refer a question of law under section 66(1) which arises out of the order then the only jurisdiction of the court is to require the Tribunal to refer the same under section 66(2). It is true that the court has jurisdiction to resettle questions of law so as to bring the real issue between the parties but it is not open to the court to raise new questions which have not been referred to it by the Tribunal." Bu....