PULAVARTHI VISWANADHAM Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question we are called upon to answer in both the references is formulated in these terms :

(2.) R. C. No. 14 of 1961 relates to the assessment year 1945-46 while R. C. No. 13 of 1961 pertains to the year ended March 31, 1948. The assessee, who is an individual, claimed to be a partner in the firm of Messrs. J. V. Subba Rao and B. Satyanarayana Murthy, Guntur. He included his one-fourth share of income from the firm in his return for the year 1945-46. However, the Income-tax Officer excluded this income from the assessees assessment under the impression that it belonged to the estate of late J. V. Subba Rao and the assessment was finalised on that basis. Later on, in an appeal filed on behalf of the estate of J. V. Subba Rao against the order of assessment bringing to tax the one-fourth share of the income above referred to, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal held that this share income really belonged to the assessee.

(3.) IT is urged by Sri Rajeswara Rao, learned counsel for the assessee, that it was not competent for the department to reassess this item as the notice issued under section 34(1) (b) was barred, the notice having been issued only on March 11, 1954, while the original assessment was completed on March 2, 1948.