In a civil suit the respondent obtained a decree against his employer the appellant company for a sum which included com- pensation for wrongful termination of his service, arrears of salary, interest and costs of the suit, and then applied for execution of the decree.
Y. Narayana Chetty Vs. ITO (Supreme Court) The notice prescribed by section 148 cannot be regarded as a mere procedural requirement. It is only if the said notice is served on the assessee that the ITO would be justified in taking proceedings against the assessee. If no notice is issued or if the notice issued is shown to be invalid, then the proceedings taken by the ITO would be illegal and void – Y. Narayana Chetty v. ITO [1959] 35 ITR 388 (SC); CIT v. Thayaballi Mulla Jeevaji Kapasi [1967] 66 ITR 147 (SC); CIT v. Kurban Hussain Ibrahimji Mithiborwala [1971] 82 ITR 821 (SC).
Held, that the Income-tax Officer was justified in exercising his powers under s. 35 and rectifying the mistake. As a result of, the legal fiction about the retrospective operation of the Amendment Act, the subsequently inserted proviso must be read as.
An assessment under section 23(3) of the Act cannot be made only on bare suspcion. An assessment so made without disclosing to the assessee the information supplied by the departmental representative and without giving any opportunity to the assessee to rebut the information so supplied and declining to take into consideration all materials which the assesses wanted to produce in support of his case constitutes a violation of the fundamental rules of justice and calls for the powers under Art. 136 of the Constitution.
