HAJARILAL KISHORILAL Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay (Bench C), has referred the following questions for our decision:

(2.) WHETHER the order imposing the penalty is invalid on the ground that the notice issued to the assessee did not correctly specify the default committed by the assessee or that the notice was not signed by the Income-tax Officer?"

(3.) SHIR M. Adhikari, learned counsel for the Department, submitted that the finding as to whether a notice under Section 22 (2) was served on the assessee or not is a finding of fact which is not open to challenge in these proceedings. It is urged that there was material on record on the basis of which the Tribunal could come to the conclusion it reached. Unless it is shown that the finding was perverse, the same cannot be interfered with, Shri Adhikari pointed out to us that the Income-tax Officer in his order, dated 29-6-1963, had mentioned that the notice under Section 22 (2) was served on the assessee on 27-10-1958. In addition to that, there is also mention of the service of the notice in the notice issued under Section 22 (4). These facts, considered along with the reply of the assessee, can legitimalely lead to the conclusion that the notice under Section 22 (2) was actually served on the assessee as there is also a presumption that official acts are performed properly. In any case, it was urged that the finding of the Tribunal could not be treated as perverse and was not open to challenge in these proceedings.