1986 (9) TMI 413 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
Assessment validity under section 263(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961
Application of scheme for new taxpayers in small income groups
Cancellation of assessment order by the Commissioner
Principles of natural justice violation
Validity of Commissioner's order based on surmises and conjectures
Setting aside assessment under the scheme by the Commissioner
Cancellation of consolidated order by the Tribunal

Analysis:

The judgment by the Patna High Court, delivered by Uday Sinha and Ashwini Kumar Sinha, JJ., pertains to a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1971-72. The key issues revolve around the validity of the assessment order under section 263(1), the application of a scheme for new taxpayers in small income groups, and the actions of the Commissioner in cancelling the assessment order. The questions referred for opinion include whether the assessment order was erroneous, whether natural justice principles were followed, and if the Commissioner's order was based on surmises and conjectures.

The case involves an assessment under a scheme by the Board, allowing assessees who had not filed returns until 1972 to do so, with assessments made on the spot by the ITO without recourse to section 143(1) provisions. The scheme had specific criteria, excluding ladies and minors, with income not exceeding Rs. 15,000 and initial capital investment not exceeding Rs. 25,000. The Commissioner cancelled the assessment order upon learning of it, directing a fresh assessment under section 143(1). The Tribunal later set aside the Commissioner's order, stating that the assessments were done after proper verification, and the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to cancel them.

The High Court's analysis, based on previous decisions, emphasized that the scheme did not apply to ladies and minors, and the ITOs were required to follow section 143(1) procedures. It was held that the Tribunal's decision in a related case was incorrect, and the reference must favor the revenue. The Court ruled in favor of the revenue on various questions, including the validity of assessments, violation of natural justice principles, and the basis of the Commissioner's order. The Tribunal's decision to cancel the consolidated order under section 263(1) was also deemed incorrect.

In conclusion, the High Court answered all questions in favor of the revenue, citing reasons such as incorrect application of the scheme, lack of natural justice violation, and improper cancellation of the Commissioner's order. Despite the ruling in favor of the revenue, no costs were awarded due to special circumstances in the case.