1994 (2) TMI 4 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity and legality of the assessment order.
2. Jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain the suit challenging the assessment order.
3. Application of Section 293 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
4. Principles of natural justice in the assessment proceedings.
5. Interim relief and stay of the assessment order.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity and Legality of the Assessment Order:
The petitioner, assessed as an individual under the Income-tax Act, 1961, filed a return of income declaring a total loss. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (Investigation) found that the petitioner, as President of Shri Vitrag Co-op. Housing Society Ltd., had received unaccounted "on money" for house sales. The assessment order added Rs. 7,35,000 for B-type houses and Rs. 63,000 for C-type houses to the petitioner's total income. The petitioner challenged this order, arguing it was passed de hors the Act and violated principles of natural justice.

2. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court:
The petitioner filed a Regular Civil Suit to challenge the assessment order and sought an interim injunction. The civil court dismissed the application, citing lack of jurisdiction under Section 293 of the Income-tax Act, which bars suits in civil courts against orders made under the Act. The appellate court upheld this decision, leading to the present revision application.

3. Application of Section 293 of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
Section 293 explicitly bars any suit in civil courts to set aside or modify proceedings or orders under the Income-tax Act. The court emphasized that the Act provides a complete code for assessing income and challenging assessment orders. The petitioner's appeal against the assessment order indicated that the order was treated as valid under the Act, thus invoking Section 293's bar on civil suits.

4. Principles of Natural Justice in the Assessment Proceedings:
The petitioner contended that the assessment order relied on statements from other proceedings and lacked adherence to natural justice. However, the Assistant Commissioner had recorded statements under Section 131 of the Act and allowed cross-examination. The court found that the assessment order was based on relevant facts and cogent reasons, and did not violate principles of natural justice.

5. Interim Relief and Stay of the Assessment Order:
The petitioner requested a continuation of the stay to approach the Supreme Court. The court rejected this, noting that interim relief should not have been granted initially, as it would nullify the Act's provisions. The Income-tax Department must not be restrained from recovering dues post-assessment order.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the revision application, affirming that the civil court lacked jurisdiction under Section 293 of the Income-tax Act. The assessment order was found to be valid and not violative of natural justice. The request for continued interim relief was also denied.