1933 (5) TMI 17

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Question (2) is : "If such assessment is otherwise valid, is it invalidated be made fact that the succession took place after the close of the year in which the income escaped assessment, (in this case the year 1929-30) ? Question (3) is : "When a notice under Section 34 has been served on a person and he had made a return in response thereto can the proceedings be continued by the issued of notices under Sections 22 (4) and 23 (2) to the successor of such person, or should proceedings against the successor be started de novo ?" The facts of the case are that 1928-29 was the year of account and that an original assessment was made on the profits of the business carried on by the petitioners husband (deceased) on the 18th Jul....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....assessment, was grossly in accurate. The premise, therefore, upon which this argument is based does not exist. The second point raised is that the petitioner was improperly assessed as the successor to her husband under Section 26 (2) because she did not succeed to her husbands business until his death on the 27th August 1931, because the Act only applies to a successor during the year of assessment of the previous year. That is not so. The Act provides for an assessment on the date on which the person carrying on business has been succeeded by another person in which case that other person is to be assessed as if he or she had been carrying on the business during the year of account and as if he or she had received the whole of the prof....