Prakash Krishna, J. - (1.) The Tribunal has referred the following two questions of law as per direction of this Court, under Section 256(2) of the IT Act for the opinion of this Court for the asst. yrs. 1965-66 to 1972-73 : "(1) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal could be said to be correct in deciding that the notice under Section 148 of the IT Act issued to the assessee-HUF was not meant for it, but for the Karta as an individual ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in annulling the assessment made by issue of notice under Section 148 on the ground that no valid notice under Section 148 was issued to the assessee-HUF ?"
(2.) The assessee is an HUF and it derived income for the aforesaid assessment years from property and dealings in silver utensils and yarn. After completion of the assessment for the asst. yrs. 1965-66 to 1972-73, the business premises of the assessee was searched. The ITO on the basis of the documents and the articles found during the course of search, was of the view that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment and the business in the name of one Heera Lal Burnwal was the Benami business of the assessee. After obtaining sanction from the CIT, notices under Section 147(a) of the Act were issued. The ITO sought and was granted the approval to the reopening of the assessment in respect of the assessee in the status of HUF. However, the notices issued to the assessee were addressed as follows : Shri Ram Lala Prasad Pro. Ram Das Deokinandan Prasad, Hindi Bazar, Gorakhpur. The notices were served on Shri Ram Lala Prasad. He was also the Karta of the assessee-HUF. In compliance to the notices, returns were filed in the status of HUF and the assessments were also completed in that status.
(3.) The ITO rejected the contention of the assessee that the Department had no material to show that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment. He also rejected the contention that the notices were invalid and illegal as the same have been served in the individual capacity of the assessee. The CIT(A) heard the matter in appeal for the asst. yr. 1965-66 and accepted both the contentions of the assessee that the ITO had no material to come to conclusion that there was escapement of income. He also accepted the contention that the notice under Section 147(a) of the Act was invalid. Consequently, the reassessment order for the asst. yr. 1965-66 was cancelled. The same view was taken by the CIT(A) for the asst. yrs. 1970-71, 1971-72 and 1972-73. However, the appeals for the asst. yrs. 1966-67, 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70 were considered by another CIT(A). For the asst. yrs. 1966-67 and 1967-68, he, by a consolidated order,r took a different view of the matter and came to the conclusion that the proceedings under Section 148 were started with the prior approval of the CIT(A). The proposal for approval was sent in respect of the assessee in the status of HUF and the notice issued to the Karta of the HUF, Shri Ram Lala Prasad, and then the return was filed in the status of HUF, therefore, the notices were valid. For the asst. yrs. 1968-69 and 1969-70, the CIT(A) followed its earlier order and dismissed the appeals.;