RAMA GUHA Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER C WARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question involved in this application in it a notice issued under Section 34 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is valid.

(2.) The petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 were partners of a firm known as Calcutta General Stores (petitioner No. 3). The said firm's business consisted, inter alia, in supplying stores and materials to tea gardens at Jalpaiguri, These supplies were effected from Calcutta and it is alleged that the firm did not carry on any business at Jalpaiguri. It is further alleged that the petitioner No. 3 carried on its business up to March 1960, and thereafter no business was carried on by fee petitioner No. 8 and therefore it was dissolved.

(3.) For the assessment years 1959-80 and 1960-61 the petitioner No. 8 filed returns under Section 22(2) of the Act at Jalpaiguri, and was duly assessed to tax, and the amount of the tax was also paid.