TARAK NATH BAGCHI Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant is the Receiver appointed by this Court in respect of the assets of a business which was conducted in the name of Messrs. P.M. Bagchi & Co. There are several branches of this business at various places in Calcutta including one at No. 19 and 19/1, Gulu Ostagar Lane, and another at No. 14, Olive Street, Calcutta; the former is within the area of the Income-tax Officer of District No. 1(2) and the latter within the area of the Income-tax Officer of District No. 5. It is said that the principal place of business was at Gulu Ostagar Lane, Calcutta. Proceedings having been taken with respect to this business of which, at one time, a man named Panchanan Bagchi was the sole proprietor and the applicant, having been appointed Receiver he entered upon his duties and took possession of the assets on 18-7- 1935.

(2.) In this matter before us, the Commissioner of Income-tax, Calcutta, is showing cause against a rule nisi granted by this Court on 12-1-1944, requiring the Income-tax Tribunal to refer to this Court certain questions which the applicant alleges arose out of its decision with regard to the assessment of the profits of the business for the year 1935-86. The questions with which the rule nisi is concerned relate to the notice given under Section 34/22(2), Income-tax Act, and to the assessment made upon the notice. There also arises, in connection with those questions, consideration of the transfer by one Income-tax Officer to another officer of the file relating to the assessment of the profits of the business.

(3.) Originally, the Income-tax Officer of District No. 1(2) had in his jurisdiction the assessment of the profits of the business. This, it is stated, was because the business premises in that District were the principal place of business. In October 1935, after the present applicant became Receiver, the Income-tax Officer of District No. 1(2) was requested by Mr. J.R. Roy, a pleader, to transfer the income-tax matters relating to the business to District No. 5. Mr. J. Rule Roy at that time wa3 instructed by Mr. Panchanan Bagchi who at one period was in control of the business. On 23-7-1936 the Officer of the District No. 5 issued a notice under Section 34/22(2) in respect of the profits of the business. It was, in fact, issued upon the Hindu undivided family known as P.M. Bagchi & Co. This notice required a return to be made in respect of the profits of the business which should have been assessed during the year 1935-36. Nothing seems to have been done, although apparently reminders or notices were sent by the Income-tax Officer, until 20-1-1937, when the applicant wrote to the Income-tax Officer of District No. 5 acknowledging post-card and stating that his office was at No. 19 and 19/1 Gulu Ostagar Lane, Calcutta, where all the accounts were kept and books of account were being produced to the Income-tax Officer of District No. 1(2) : in view of those circumstances, the applicant requested a transfer of the pending case to District No. 1(2) for his convenience. This transfer was effected and the file was sent to District No. 1(2). On 2-6- 1939, the Additional Income-tax Officer of that District made an assessment against which the applicant appealed to the Tribunal and in respect o? which the present matter arises.