1986 (7) TMI 80

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... that the assessment should be done de novo from the stage of section 144B proceedings after issuing notices to all the legal representatives ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal ought to have held that the assessment was null and void and, consequently, it ought to have annulled the entire assessment? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee after having participated in all the proceedings and after receipt of the draft assessment order could raise objection regarding validity of service of notice and of the assessment orders ? " One Muddusuvarna was the original assessee. For the assessment....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Commissioner rejected that contention, although he gave some relief on the merits of the matter. Thereupon, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. It was contended before the Tribunal that the assessment order was invalid since all the legal representatives of Muddasuvarna were not notified. On behalf of the Revenue, it was contended that Ashok Kumar, having participated in the proceedings as a legal representative of Muddusuvarna, he could not raise the contention regarding the validity of the assessment. It was urged that if any such contention could be raised, it could be only by the other legal representatives of Muddusuvarna and not by Ashok Kumar himself. The Tribunal rejected the contention urged for the Reven....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rly be represented by only one of the legal representatives. All legal representatives must be notified. But, in the instant case, that contention is not relevant. Notice under section 139(2) was served on Muddusuvarna when he was alive. He did not file the return. Under the law, there was a valid initiation of the proceedings. There is no requirement under the law to issue another notice under section 139(2) to the legal representatives. However, having come to know that Muddusuvarna died leaving behind him more than one legal representative, the Income-tax Officer issued a notice again to Ashok Kumar. That was not a legal requirement under the statute. The fact that the Income-tax Officer had issued a notice under section 139(2) to Ashok ....