LAWS(PVC)-1929-10-102

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Vs. SMPERIANNA PILLAI

Decided On October 23, 1929
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Appellant
V/S
SMPERIANNA PILLAI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the Commissioner of Income-tax refers the following question for the decision of this Court: Where an assessee applies for adjournment by post or by telegram of an enquiry in respect of which he has been required by a notice under Section 23(2) to produce evidence and the Income-tax Officer grants an adjournment, is the letter (or the telegram, where it is a telegram) intimating the fact of the adjournment to the assessee either a notice under Section 23(2), or a requisition within the meaning of Section 63, of the Act?

(2.) To understand precisely the nature of this question, it is necessary to look at the circumstances out of which it arose.

(3.) The assessee made his return on 19 June, 1928, and on 22 September, a notice under Secs.23(2) and 22 (4) was issued to him requiring him to produce his accounts on 4th October. On 3 October he sent a telegram pleading a private engagement and asking for an adjournment for two weeks. If this has been granted in full it would have entailed a postponement of the hearing until 18 October. The Income-tax Officer did not grant it in full, but he did adjourn the case until the 12th. This he intimated to the assessee by means of a postcard despatched on the 4th. The assessee did not appear or cause the production of his accounts on the 12th, and since he had thereby failed to comply with the terms of the notice the Income-tax Officer, under Section 23(4), made the assessment to the best of his judgment.