9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer to issue notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Compliance with the conditions for issuing notice under section 148. 3. Duty of the assessee to make a true and full disclosure of primary facts during assessment. 4. Applicability of the case law ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das [1976] 103 ITR 437. 5. Adequacy of grounds for issuing notice under section 148. 6. Timing of raising objections by the assessee before the authorities. Jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer: The petition challenges a notice issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, concerning the income of a Hindu undivided family for the assessment year 1993-94. The assessee received two notices, one from the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax and the other under section 148. The court notes that the assessee did not respond to either notice. The court dismisses the argument that the Income-tax Officer lacked jurisdiction to issue the notice under section 148, emphasizing that the absence of objections from the assessee before the issuing authority prevents the court from commenting on this aspect. It is established that the issuance of a notice under section 148 is valid if the conditions stipulated in the section are met. Duty of the Assessee and Compliance with Conditions: Referring to the case law ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das [1976] 103 ITR 437, the court underscores the duty of the assessee to provide a true and full disclosure of primary facts during assessment. The court clarifies that the adequacy of grounds for issuing the notice is not a matter for the court to investigate. In this case, the assessee failed to respond to the notices received, indicating a lack of cooperation in the assessment process. The court highlights that the assessee should have raised objections or responded to the notices before seeking intervention from the High Court, emphasizing the importance of engaging with the tax authorities in the initial stages of assessment. Timing of Raising Objections: The court emphasizes that the appropriate course of action for the assessee is to address objections or respond to the delayed notices before approaching the High Court in its writ jurisdiction. By failing to engage with the authorities or respond to the notices promptly, the assessee bypassed the necessary procedural steps in the assessment process. The court suggests that raising objections and cooperating with the authorities at the initial stages of assessment is crucial before seeking judicial intervention. In conclusion, the judgment upholds the validity of the notice issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, emphasizing the importance of the assessee's duty to disclose primary facts during assessment. The court highlights the significance of engaging with the tax authorities and raising objections at the appropriate stages of the assessment process before resorting to legal action.
|
