RADHEY LAL BALMUKAND Vs. STATE OF UP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only question which we have to decide in this reference under Section 66 (3) of the Income-tax Act is as follows

(2.) IN our opinion there is no force in this plea and we agree with the view which has been expressed by the Commissioner of INcome-tax. As has been pointed out by him, a form 8s prescribed by statute for the return of income-tax, but there is no statutory form for the notice which is issued under Section 22 (2) and there is nothing whatsoever in the Act to support the contention which has been advanced before us on behalf of the assessee. The notice under Section 22 (2) is the very step which is taken by the INcome-tax authorities and it is obvious that at this intial stage the INcome-tax Officer may be in no position to know whether the potential assessee is to be taxed as an individual or a Hindu undivided family or firm ect., whereas the person who receives notice has obvisously precise information for this very matter. This very point was considered this Bench in Gopaldas Parshottamadas (1941) 9 I. T. R 130., and the decision at which we arrived was that it was the duty of the person receiving the notice to score out the irrelevant capacities in the notice.