LAWS(KAR)-1969-6-3

BOGRAM LAKSHMIAH Vs. TAX RECOVERY OFFICER

Decided On June 02, 1969
Bogram Lakshmiah Appellant
V/S
TAX RECOVERY OFFICER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE writ petitions pose common questions which could be disposed of by a common judgment. The petitioners are assessees in whose cases assessments were made under the provisions of the Indian Income -tax Act, 1922, which will be referred to as 'the old Act', and with respect to some of them there was imposition of a penalty also under the old Act. Notices of demand for the payments of the amounts due from them were also issued under section 29 of that Act and on their committing default in the payment of the amounts, certificates were issued in all these cases under section 222 of the Income -tax Act, 1961, which will be referred to as the new Act for the recovery of the amounts due.

(2.) IT was in this situation that the Tax Recovery Officer commenced proceedings for the recovery of these amounts under section 222 and we are asked by the petitioners to quash the notices of demand issued by him and to forbid the recovery.

(3.) IT is undisputed that the assessments made under the old Act were properly made with respect to antecedent periods since section 297(2)(a) of the new Act does authorise those assessments. But, it was maintained by Mr. Srinivasan that with respect to the amounts due under those assessments, notices of demand could have been issued only under section 156 of the new Act and not under section 29 of the old Act. In support of this postulate, Mr. Srinivasan appealed to the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Third Income -tax Officer, Mangalore v. Damodar Bhat : [1969]71ITR806(SC) . in which the elucidation made was that even with respect to an assessment made under the old Act a notice of demand under section 156 of the new Act could issue. But, that educiation does not support the proposition that a notice of demand with respect to an assessment made under the old Act could issue only under section 156 of the new Act and that the notice of demand issued under section 29 of the old Act is not a good notice.