NAGARMAL BAIJNATH Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are preferred against the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Income-tax Reference No. 44/68. The question referred under S. 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 and S. 21 of the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1948 for the opinion of the High Court reads thus:

(2.) The appellant-assessee, M/s. Nagarmal Baijnath was a firm which did business during the accounting years relevant to assessment years 1946-47 and 1947-48, the previous years being the years ending November 4, 1945 and March 31, 1946 respectively. By a deed of dissolution dated December 2, 1946, the firm was dissolved and its business discontinued.

(3.) Notice under Section 22(2) of the Act relating to the assessment year 1946-47 was issued in the name of the partnership firm and served on one Satyanarayan who accepted it on behalf of the firm, on August 19, 1946. Subsequent notices under Ss. 22(4) and 23(2) were also issued in the name of the firm and assessment completed on March 23, 1951 on the firm. The same procedure was adopted with respect to the assessment year 1947-48 and assessment completed on the firm-on March 10, 1952. So far as the assessments under the Excess Profits Tax Act are concerned, notices were issued again in the name of the firm and assessments completed in the name of the firm. Indeed, the returns were filed in the name of the firm signed by Baijnath Gajanand for and on behalf of the firm.