1962 (4) TMI 6

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ect to the revised assessments made under section 35 of the Income-tax Act against the respondents. The respondents did not appear at the hearing in this court. The proceedings in the two cases related to the assessment of the respondents for the assessment year 1950-51. The respondent in Civil Appeal No. 410 of 1961 was assessed as an individual and the respondent in Civil Appeal No. 411 of 1961, as a Hindu undivided family. In both cases, the original assessment was completed on January 22, 1952. The two assessees held shares in two registered firms and the shares of profits from these firms were taken to be certain amounts and were included in the total assessable incomes of the two respondents. The assessments of the two firms were no....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dly made before April 1, 1952, and they were sought to be reopened under section 35(5) of the Act and this it has been hold by the beach in Lakshminarayana Chetty v. Income-tax Officer, Nellore is without jurisdiction." The error, therefore, was easily, explainable and the meaning quite clear, though learned counsel for the appellant before us relied on such an obviously explainable error. The decision of the learned single judge that to an assessment completed before April 11, 1952, the provisions of section 35(5) could not be made applicable was upheld by the divisional bench. The divisional bench stated the real point raised as follows : "The Income-tax Officer reopened the assessments made on, the partners and, therefore, the only q....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t the same time a different period of limitation; but the power could not be exercised in those cases where the assessment of a firm was completed before April 1, 1952, even though the rectification of the assessment of a partner was made after that date. The learned counsel for the department contends that the assessment of the partners was made on January 22, 1952, and could be rectified under sub-section (1) within four years, and it was so done in this case after sub-section (5) came into force. Unfortunately, the case has never been stated under sub-section (1) at any time in the High Court, and this new point cannot be permitted to be taken for the first time here. The case was rested on the application of sub-section (5) in the Hig....