COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. BIBHUTI BHUSAN MALLICK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) : The question of law referred to this Court in this reference under S. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (" the Act ") for its opinion is as follows : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the notices issued under S. 148 of the IT Act, 1961, for the asst. yrs. 1959- 60 and 1960-61 were invalid and as such the reassessment proceedings made in pursuance of the said invalid notices were illegal and void ?"

(2.) The assessee, Bibhuti Bhusan Mallick, is assessed as a HUF. The ITO sought to reopen the assessments for the years 1959-60 and 1960-61 under S. 147(a) of the Act. He issued notices under S. 148 of the Act in the name of Panchanan Mallick and Bibhuti Bhusan Mallick for both the years. Pursuant thereto, returns were thereafter filed by the assessee who took objection to the validity of the notices and the procedure of reopening contending, inter alia, that notices were not issued in the proper nomenclature of the assessee, viz., " Bibhuti Bhusan Mallick ", and that the sanction of the CIT for reopening the assessments was also not obtained in the proper name of the assessee. It was also urged that all the primary facts were fully and truly disclosed before the ITO at the original assessment and the reopening under S. 147(a) had been resorted to only because the ITO took a different view and formed a different opinion.

(3.) The ITO overruled the objections holding, inter alia, that since the notices under S. 148 were served on Bibhuti Bhusan Mallick, the Karta, who accepted the same without any protest, the assessee was debarred from contesting the validity of the notices. It was also held that the description of the name in the notices was a bona fide mistake for which the entire proceedings would not be vitiated. The status of the assessee was, however, shown correctly in the reassessment and no illegality resulted. The ITO also held that the material facts were not fully and truly disclosed by the assessee at the time of original assessments with regard to the loans from some parties and the assessee concealed certain material facts which warranted the reopening.