PANNALAL NANDLAL BHANDARI Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question that arises on this reference is a question of limitation and what was contended by the assesses was that certain notices served by the Income -tax Officer under Section 22(2) of the Act read with Section 34 were out of time and therefore the assessment pursuant to these notices was invalid in law.

(2.) THE two rival contentions we have to consider are, one that the period of limitation is eight years as contended by the department and the other is that the period of 'limitation is four years as contended by the assessee; and turning to Section 34 the period of limitation would be eight years if the case falls under Section 34(1)(a) and the period of limitation would be four years if the case falls under Section 34(1)(b).

(3.) THE first contention of Mr. Palkhiwalla is that the case does not fall under Sub -clause (a) because there has been no omission or failure on the part of the assessee, and this contention is based on this that there was a public notice given under Section 22(1), that there was no individual notice under Section 22(2) that the public notice did not bind the assessee and that there was no obligation on the part of the assessee in response to the public notice to make any return and, therefore, there was no omission or failure on the part of the assessee as contemplated by Section 34(1)(a).