C.M.LODHA, J. - (1.) THIS is a reference under S. 256(1) of the INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench "C", New Delhi, at the request of Indra & Co., a partnership firm (hereinafter to be referred to as "the assessee"), carrying on business at Jodhpur.
(2.) THE assessee is a registered firm of which Jeewan Lal is a partner (hereinafter referred to as "the assessee - partner"). The relevant assessment year, is 1959 -60. A notice under S. 22(2) of the Indian IT Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), was issued by the ITO, "D" Ward, Jodhpur, to both the assessees on 9th May, 1959. The assessee filed its return with the ITO, "A" Ward, Jodhpur, who had jurisdiction over the place of business of the firm, on 2nd Sept., 1960. The assessee -partner filed his return before the same ITO on 4th July, 1961. The assessment of the firm was completed on 20th Aug., 1962, whereas the assessment of the partner was completed two days later, that is, on 22nd Aug., 1962. The ITO, "A" Ward, Jodhpur, initiated proceedings for the imposition of penalty against both the assessees -the firm as well as the partner, for the late filing of returns of income by them. They raised a preliminary objection to the proceedings for the levy of penalty, inter alia, on the ground that the notice under S. 22(2) of the Act was not valid inasmuch as the ITO, "D" Ward, Jodhpur, who had issued the notices had no jurisdiction over the place of business of the assessees. The ITO by his orders dt. 12th Aug., 1968, overruled the contentions raised by the assessees and imposed penalties of Rs. 11,949.25 on the firm and Rs.9,864.77 on the partner. The assessees then preferred appeals against the orders passed by the ITO, "A" Ward, Jodhpur, before the AAC, who allowed the same by his orders dt. 4th Jan., 1965, and set aside the penalties imposed by the ITO holding that the notices issued by the ITO, "D" Ward, Jodhpur, under S. 22(2) of the Act were not valid. The Department then preferred appeals to the Tribunal, which by a common order dt. 13th April, 1967, in both the appeals, set aside the orders of the AAC, and remanded the case to the latter to dispose of the appeals on merits in accordance with law.
(3.) THE assessees then made applications before the Tribunal requiring it to state a case and refer to this Court the questions of law arising out of its order. These applications were allowed and the following question of law has been referred to us by the Tribunal: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the place of assessment and jurisdiction are one and the same thing and as such the penalty proceedings were valid in law ?" The arguments in the case commenced on 29th Aug., 1979, and the case remained part heard. On 3rd Sept., 1979, an application was moved by the assessee that the question was not properly framed and did not bring out the real dispute between the parties. It was, therefore, prayed that the question may be reframed so as to bring out the real controversy between the parties arising out of the order of the Tribunal. This application was opposed by the counsel for the Revenue. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that the points which the learned counsel have argued before us can be covered by our answer to the question. We have, therefore, refrained from resettling or reframing the question.;