HEGDE - (1.) THESE are appeals by special leave. They arise from a common judgment of the Rajasthan High Court. The assessee-company was incorporated in the erstwhile State of Jaipur on 10/03/1943, under the Jaipur Companies Act. In these appeals we are concerned with the assessment of the assessee for the assessment years 1946-47, 1947-48 and 1949-50.
(2.) AT the relevant time the headquarters of the assessee company was at Jaipur. The Income-tax Officer, Ajmer issued notices under Section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (to be hereinafter referred to as the Act) to the assessee calling upon it to submit its income-tax returns in respect of the assessment years mentioned earlier. In response to those notices the assessee submitted its returns on 11/08/1953. When those returns were pending before the I.T.O., Ajmer, the I.T.O., Central Circle IV, issued fresh notices to the assessee under Section 34 calling upon it to submit its income-tax returns in respect of those very assessment years. The assessee did not submit any return. On the other hand it wrote a letter to the I.T.O., Central Circle IV, saying that it had already submitted its returns to the I.T.O., Ajmer and hence it could not be called upon to submit fresh returns. Ignoring the objection of the assessee the I.T.O., Central Circle, assessed the assessee. He rejected the assessee's objection regarding jurisdiction with these words:- "By its letter dated 27/09/1956, the assessee contended that under Section 64 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, the place of assessment should be where the assessee carried on business, profession or vocation and that as the principal place of the business was at Jaipur, the place of assessment should have been at Jaipur. The assessee also relied upon the decision of the 'Bidi' Supply Co. v. Union of India, in support of its contention. This objection of the assessee regarding the jurisdiction was duly referred to the Commission of Income-tax, Delhi, who vide his letter dated 30/01/1957, addressed to the assessee company, informed that the case of assessee has been transferred to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle IV, under Section 5(7-A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, and that in view of the facility of investigation and proper assessment it was not possible to accede to the request of the company for transfer of the case back to the territorial Income-tax Officer. Moreover, the case of Pannalal Brijraj v. Union of India, has already decided the issue regarding the vires of Section 5 (7-A). The contention of the assessee regarding jurisdiction is, therefore, rejected". From the above observations it is clear that the contention taken before the I.T.O., Central Circle was that the assessee should be asserted by the Income-tax Officer, Jaipur who possibly had acquired territorial jurisdiction over the assessee by the time the assessment proceedings were going on before the Central Circle. No objection appears to have been taken on the ground that the Ajmer I.T.O., was seized of the proceedings in view of the notices issued by him under Section 34. The contention now advanced, namely, that in view of the circumstances that the Ajmer I.T.O. had already issued notices under Section 34 and that the assessee had already submitted its returns in response to their notices the I.T.O., Central Circle was incompetent to initiate fresh proceedings under Section 34 against the assessee does not appear to have been taken before the I.T.O., Central Code. The assessee went up in appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner against the assessment made by the I.T.O., Central Circle. Before that officer the assessee contested the jurisdiction of the I.T.O., Central Circle to assess the assessee. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner also rejected that contention. He observed:- "The proceedings under Section 34(1-A) for the assessment year 1946-47 appear to have been started on valid grounds in accordance with the law. A notice under Section 34 (1) (a) for that year was issued by the Income-tax Officer, Ajmer, after taking the previous approval of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi. A return was filed, but the assessment was not completed. Later on, it was found that the Income-tax Officer, Ajmer was not empowered and had no jurisdiction to issue notice under Section 34 (1) (a) in respect of the pre-integration period. The proceedings started by him were, therefore, not valid in the eye of law. Thereafter the Income tax Officer, Central IV, Delhi issued notice under Section 34 (1-A) after obtaining the prior approval of the Central Board of Revenue. On receipt of this notice, the company in the letter dated 2-4-1955 informed the Income-tax Officer that a return has already been filed for that year and requested him to treat the said return as one submitted in compliance with the notice under Section 34(1-A). The Income-tax Officer only complied with the request. Under the circumstances, there is no merit in the appellant's contention that the Income-tax Officer was not competent to issue the notice under Section 34(1-A) for the assessment year 1946-47".
(3.) HERE again it may be noticed that the only contention taken before the A.A.C. was that the notice issued by the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle, under Section 34 (1-A) was invalid in respect of the assessment year 1946-47 and not in respect of other assessment years. It may be noticed that by its letter dated 2-4-1955, the assessee had requested the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle, to assess him on the basis of the returns submitted by it to the Income-tax Officer, Ajmer. The Income-tax Officer Central Circle, complied with that request. The circumstance under which the I.T.O., Central Circle came to issue notices under Section 34 is set out in the order of the A.A.C. The A.A.C.'s order indicates that in respect of Jaipur which was formerly a native State, there have been some changes as regards the Income-tax set up. Possibly for some time after Jaipur's integration with India, Jaipur was under the jurisdiction of the I.T.O., Ajmer. But that is not clear from the records. All the same it is necessary to note that it was not the contention of the assessee that the I.T.O., Central Circle was not competent to initiate proceedings against it in view of the notices issued by the I.T.O., Ajmer. We have only to examine the correctness of that contention. Before the Tribunal it was urged that as the I.T.O., Ajmer had already initiated proceedings under Section 34(1)(a), the I.T.O., Central Circle was incompetent to initiate fresh proceedings under Section 34 (1-A). The Tribunal accepted that contention. Consequently the Tribunal held that the notices issued by I.T.O., Central Circle, were invalid notices. Thereafter, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, the following question was submitted by the Tribunal to the High Court in respect of the assessment year 1946-47: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case a fresh action under Section 34(1-A) could be initiated on 21-2-1955 and an assessment made thereon on 24-3-1956 when a return dated 11-8-1953 was already pending before the Income-tax Officer?" ;