PUTTANNA D R Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, has referred the following question for the opinion of this Court :

(2.) THE assessee is an HUF and the assessment relates to the year 1963-64. THE ITO served on the assessee a notice under s. 139(2) of the Act on 10th May, 1963, calling upon it to submit the return for the year 1963-64. In response to the said notice, the assessee did not submit any return nor did it apply for extension of time. THE ITO made an order of assessment on 29th Feb., 1964, under s. 144 of the Act by which he determined the total income of the assessee at Rs. 52,520. On appeal by the assessee to the AAC, the said income was reduced to Rs. 40,270. In the second appeal before the Tribunal, the only ground urged by the assessee was that no assessment under s. 144 of the Act could have been made without service of a notice under s. 142(1) of the Act. That contention was rejected. Hence, this reference.