COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. JOKHIRAM BAL MUKAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question referred to this court under sub-section (1) of section 66 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 (Act 11 of 1922), is :

(2.) THE question on the facts arises under section 34(1)(b) of Act 11 of 1922. THE assessee is a Hindu undivided family. In its return for the assessment year 1947-48, among other incomes, it showed its share of profits from the income of a registered firm with style of a Jokhiram-Balmukand, Pilkhuva, as Rs. 2,258. At that time the assessment on that firm had not yet been made. Subsequently, when assessment of the income of that firm was made, the share of the assessees profit was computed at Rs. 6,843. On March 31, 1952, a notice was issued by the Income-tax Officer under section 34(1)(b) and section 22(1) Act 11 of 1922 calling upon the assessee to submit a return of its total income. THE notice was served on the assessee on April 10, 1952. THE Supplementary assessment was completed on March 25, 1953. In that assessment the Income-tax Officer substituted the share of the profit of the assessee from the income of that firm on the higher figure of the already referred to in place of the earlier figure of Rs. 2,258 and raised a demand against the assessee for income tax accordingly. On appeal by the assessee, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner being of the opinion that notice under section 34(1)(b) of Act 11 of 1922 should have been served on the assessee at least on March 31, 1952, found that the service in the case of the notice was beyond that date and that nullified the resultant action against the assessee. In an appeal by the department to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Delhi Bench) that order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was upheld following Sri Niwas v. Income-tax Officer, "A" Ward, Sitapur. THE order of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is of December 20, 1956. It was after that the Commissioner of Income-tax obtained a reference of the question as above to this court.