1984 (8) TMI 52

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....deceased "), who died on September 18, 1969. The deceased was a partner in two firms, viz., (a) M/s. Jawarmal Ramkaran, and (b) M/s. Radhakishan Ramchandra. On April 4, 1970, the petitioner filed estate duty return disclosing the total chargeable estate of the deceased at Rs. 3,46,040. In the said return was also categorically disclosed the interest of the deceased in the above two partnership firms. Interest of the deceased in M/s. Jawarmal Ramkaran was valued at Rs. 2,54,548 and his interest in M/s. Radhakishan Ramchandra was valued at Rs. 56,536. In the course of the assessment proceedings, the 1st respondent did not accept the return filed as it was but took into consideration the fact that the goodwill of the aforesaid two partnership ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....unds on the basis whereof the belief was formed to the effect that the estate liable to estate duty had escaped assessment. There was no response. Reminders also were of no avail. Hence, this petition challenging the legality and validity of the notice dated March 18, 1980. Hearing submissions of the respective counsel and going through the petition and the affidavit in reply and the authorities to which my attention was invited by Mr. V. J. Pandit, learned counsel for the petitioner, I find the impugned notice to be unsustainable and liable to be set aside and quashed. Apart from the fact that the affidavit in reply to this petition does not disclose any information or any material on the basis of which the impugned notice was issued....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... carefully maintained, the confusion which often results in applying section 147(b) may be avoided. While the law may be enacted or laid down only by a person or body with authority in that behalf, the knowledge or awareness of the law may be communicated by anyone. No authority is required for the purpose. That part alone of the note of an audit party which mentions the law which escaped the notice of the ITO constitutes 'information' within the meaning of s. 147(b) ; the part which embodies the opinion of the audit party in regard to the application or interpretation of the law cannot be taken into account by the ITO. In every case, the ITO must determine for himself what is the effect and consequence of the law mentioned in the audit not....