9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction under Section 5(7A) and Section 64(3) of the Income-tax Act. 2. Compliance with procedural requirements under Section 64(3) of the Act. 3. Validity of the Board's order under Section 5(2) or Section 5(7A) of the Act. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Jurisdiction under Section 5(7A) and Section 64(3) of the Income-tax Act The petitioner contended that the order of the Board of Revenue dated May 12, 1951, transferring the case to the Commissioner of Income-tax, New Delhi, was made under Section 5(7A) of the Act. Consequently, neither the Commissioner of Income-tax at Hyderabad nor the Commissioner at New Delhi had jurisdiction to determine the place of business under Section 64(3) due to the inhibition contained in Section 64(5). The court examined the nature of the Board's order and concluded that it was not an order under Section 5(7A) or Section 5(2) within the meaning of Section 64(5). The court held that the order was neither a transfer from one Income-tax Officer to another nor an assignment to a Commissioner without reference to area. Therefore, the provisions of Section 64(1) and (3) were applicable. Issue 2: Compliance with procedural requirements under Section 64(3) of the Act The petitioner argued that the provisions of Section 64(3) were not complied with, as he was not given a reasonable opportunity to represent his views. The court noted that the petitioner was given multiple opportunities to state his objections, including a notice dated January 23, 1962, and subsequent correspondence. The court held that the opportunity provided was sufficient, and the Commissioner was justified in proceeding with the determination of the place of assessment in the absence of the petitioner, who failed to provide a medical certificate for his requested adjournment. The court also clarified that the opportunity to represent views under Section 64(3) does not necessarily require a personal hearing and can be made through written representation or by a representative. Issue 3: Validity of the Board's order under Section 5(2) or Section 5(7A) of the Act The petitioner contended that if the Board's order was not under Section 5(7A), it should be considered an order under Section 5(2). The court rejected this contention, stating that the order did not fall under Section 5(2) as it was not an assignment of work to a Commissioner appointed without reference to area. The court also dismissed the argument that the order was made under Section 5(8), which deals with administrative directions, as this provision does not empower the Board to transfer or assign cases. The court concluded that the order was neither under Section 5(2) nor Section 5(7A) and therefore did not preclude the determination of the place of assessment under Section 64(3). Conclusion: The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the determination of the place of assessment at Hyderabad was valid and complied with the procedural requirements of Section 64(3). The petitioner's objections regarding jurisdiction and procedural compliance were found to be without merit. The court emphasized that the provisions of Section 64(1) and (3) were applicable, and the petitioner was given ample opportunity to represent his views. The petition was dismissed with costs, and the order determining the place of assessment at Hyderabad was upheld.
|
