TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1986 (6) TMI 55
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed to the assessee through notice dated 15th Feb., 1983 that the notice was meant for M/s Gopi Krishna & Co. (Head Office). 4. That the ld. AAC has erred in law in holding that 703.500 gms. gold ornaments seized by the Gold Contral Authorities on 25th April, 1970 were duly accounted for in the books of account. 5. That the ld. AAC failed to appreciate that on this very ground the Gold Control authorities have imposed a fine of Rs. 8,000 and personal penalty of Rs. 6,000 in respect of this very transaction, and the order of Gold control authorities have become final. 6. That the order of the ld. AAC is erroneous in law and on facts of the case and it deserves to be set aside and the order of ITO deserves to be restored. 2. The fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nership deed itself takes the two names of the as mentioned above. It is also stated in the partnership deed (as mentioned above) that the name of Hari Prasad Gopi Krishna was for gold ornament business. It was argued that though the notice more conveniently could have been issued in the name of Hari Prasad Gopi Krishna, and Company but simply because the notice was issued in the name of Hari Prasad Gopi Krishna, the notice was not bad as it was issued in the name of the assessee itself and admittedly Hari Prasad Gopi Krishna was the name of the branch of the assessee. It was argued that there was no invalidity in the notice issued nor any confusion or vagueness as alleged. There was no dispute vis-a-vis the status of the assessee. The case....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....into the facts of the case and the rival viewpoints. In the decision reported in (1983) 144 ITR 745 (All) it was held by the Allahabad High Court that issue of a valid notice within the specified period was a condition precedent for the validity of any re-assessment. It was also held in this case that the notice issued was vague and the notice was not valid. In this case the notice was not clear with regard to the status as to whether the notice was issued to the individual or to the HUF. The High Court, therefore, held that the notice was vague and hence invalid. In the case reported at (1979) 119 ITR 340 (Cal) the facts were that there were two concerns of the same name and at the same address at the relevant time. The ITO had full knowle....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gold ornament business in this name. Probably the gold licence of the assessee was in this name. It may be true that the name of the Head Office was Gopi Krishna and Company and the notice more appropriately should have been issued in the name of Gopi Krishna and Company but the mention of the name of Hari Prasad Gopi Krishna did not create any confusion. This name did not refer to any other assessee. There was no confusion with regard to the status nor any controversy as to whether the notice was issued to the individual or to the HUF. In other words, the notice, in our opinion was not vague. The name of the branch of the assessee was as good a name of the assessee as the other name which was the name given to the Head Office. Even in this....