complaint under section 138 of the Act without signature is maintainable when such complaint is verified by the complainant and the process is issued by the Magistrate after due verification. The prosecution of such complaint is maintainable and we agree with the conclusion arrived at by the Division Bench of the High Court. Consequently, both the appeals fail and are dismissed.
On going through the records, we find that the issues that were raised were not discussed and dealt with by the High Court except for saying that the case is not a fit case to be interfered with. According to us, this is not a proper disposal of the appeal. Accordingly, we set aside the order and remit back the matter for fresh disposal de novo in accordance with law.
i. Provide adequate infrastructure to DRTs/DRATs on the following basis: a. If sufficient space as per requirement is available in the Government building, then space from the concerned department will be allotted on a permanent basis.
The Indian law on privileged professional communication, codified under the Indian Evidence Act of 1872, has developed on the same lines as UK common law. The benefit of privileged communication under sections 126 and 129 of the Evidence Act is available only in relation to communications and correspondences between client and attorney or advocate.
It is possible, on an interpretation of Section 4(1)(c) of the Act to answer this question either way, but unfortunately the High Court did not even notice this provision of the Act. Of course, the submission of learned counsel for the assessee is that on an interpretation of Section 4(1)(c) of the Act, it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination, that the assessee had made a gift of 14,000 bonus shares to the transferee in the previous year relevant to the Assessment Year 1989-90.
Notice cannot be issued when returns are pending – Notice cannot be issued unless the return which has already been filed has been disposed of – CIT v. M.K.K.R. Muthukaruppan Chettiar [1970] 78 ITR 69 (SC); Bhagwan Das Sita Ram (HUF) v. CIT [1984] 146 ITR 563 (SC).
Where the HUF was in existence during the relevant year and a partition took place later, for purposes of initiating reassessment proceedings for that year, it would not be necessary to issue notice to every member of the family – Lakshminarain Bhadani v. CIT [1951] 20 ITR 594 (SC).
Notice to company registered in Sikkim – A notice under section 148 can be validly issued on a company, if it is in respect of income which is stated to have arisen in India, even though the registered office of the company is situated in Sikkim – Alankar Commercial (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT [2000] 244 ITR 31 (SC).
Number of notices that can be issued – If the appellant had already been served with a notice under section 148 and had complied therewith by filing a return, it was entitled to contend that no second notice lay and also to submit that in any event, the second notice was barred by time.
A notice in the case of a firm need not necessarily be issued to each and every one of its partners – Y. Narayana Chetty v. ITO [1959] 35 ITR 388 (SC).
