LAWS(ALL)-1964-8-14

KANODIA BROTHERS Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Decided On August 19, 1964
KANODIA BROTHERS Appellant
V/S
INCOME-TAX OFFICER. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS special appeal has been filed by M/s. Kanodia Brothers, a partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, hereinafter referred to as the appellant, against the decision of a learned single judge (Manchanda J.) dated April 3, 1963, dismissing writ petition No. 86 of 1963 filed by the appellant. The appellant is a partnership of which the following are members in four-anna share each :

(2.) A gentleman by the name of Shahzade Prasad Srivatsava also carried on business at Kanpur. The Indian Army and Police Equipment Factory (hereinafter referred to as the factory) is said to be a partnership business of which Shahzade Prasad is admittedly one partner, the other partners according to Kanodia Brothers being the individual members who constitute the Kanodia Brothers. According to the income-tax department (hereinafter called the department), the factory is an association of persons. The Income-tax Officer, Project Circle, Kanpur, served the following notice on the factory through Shri Kanodia Brothers, former partners, Kahukothi, Kanpur :

(3.) ON receipt of the notice mentioned above the appellant filed an objection before the Income-tax Officer. The proceedings dragged on for some time and on January 17, 1961, Writ Petition No. 182 of 1961 was moved in this court on behalf of the appellants. In that petition a number of reliefs were claimed. When the matter came up for hearing before a learned judge of this court (Brijlal Gupta J), he granted an adjournment in order to enable the parties to inform him as to how far the proceedings under section 34 had gone and whether the petitioners objection to the order under section 23B had or had not been disposed of. ON the next date of hearing learned counsel for the parties informed the learned single judge that only about 15 days ago service of notice of the date in the proceedings had been made on the petitioners and that no orders had been passed on the objection under section 23. Having observed as below, the learned single judge passed an order, an extract from which is also reproduced :