P T ANKLESARIA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE answer that we must give to the question submitted to us by the Tribunal is covered directly by a decision of this Court in Ranchhoddas Karsondas vs. CIT of Income-ax (1954) 26, ITR 105 and also in Harakchand Makanji & Co. vs. CIT (1948) 16 ITR 119.

(2.) A few facts may be stated, The assessee is a firm and on the 17th March, 1952, it made a return for the asst. yr. 1947-48 declaring a loss of Rs. 74,140. It is common ground that no notice under s. 22(2) had been served upon this assessee by the ITO. When the ITO received this return he issued a notice under S. 23(2) and the return of notice was fixed for the 24th March, 1952. On the 24th March, 1952, the CIT gave permission to the ITO to issue a notice under S. 34, but in fact no notice under S. 23(2) on the 20th Feb., 1953, and the order made by the ITO was :

(3.) MR . Joshi is not in a position to distinguish Ranchhod's case (1954) 26 ITR 105 but he put forward a rather amazing argument that because he wants to appeal to the Supreme Court he wants to satisfy us that the judgment is erroneous because a certain aspect of the matter was not considered by us. Now, we have often said in this Court that when we have a judgment of a co- ordinate authority we accept the judgment challenged in a higher Court or if the Chief Justice is persuaded to constitute a Full Bench. Therefore, although we have listened to Mr. Joshi's argument with interest, we feel that that argument should be accepted or answered by a higher Tribunal.