9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Jurisdiction of Income-tax Officer for assessment years 1944-45, 1945-46, and 1946-47. Detailed Analysis: The judgment revolves around the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer for assessing the petitioner for the years 1944-45, 1945-46, and 1946-47. The petitioner, a resident of Rangpur, was a partner in four firms with separate partnership deeds. The Income-tax Officer, Rangpur, lacked jurisdiction under the Excess Profits Tax Act, leading to the transfer of records to the Income-tax Officer, Central, Calcutta. Assessments were made for the respective years under sections 23(4) and 22(2), with the petitioner challenging the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer. Appeals were made to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, who provided relief in quantum but upheld the jurisdictional issue. The petitioner further appealed to the Appellate Tribunal, which dismissed appeals related to jurisdictional objections. The Tribunal held that objections were related to the place of assessment, not jurisdiction. The petitioner contended that post-Indian Independence Act, Income-tax Officers of the Dominion of India had jurisdiction only within the Dominion's area, necessitating either residency or income within the taxable territories for proceedings to continue. Reference was made to the Indian Independence (Income-tax Proceedings) Order, 1947, which governs the transfer of cases between Dominions. The judgment highlighted that the assessments predated the appointed day and income was derived from territories within British India. The petitioner argued a shift in residency post-Independence, affecting jurisdiction, but failed to provide evidence of non-residency. The judgment emphasized that mere non-residency post-accounting period did not negate prior jurisdiction based on residence during the accounting period. Additionally, the judgment discussed the agreement for avoidance of double taxation between India and Pakistan, applicable to assessments post-Independence. It was concluded that the petitioner was a resident during the accounting years, income was derived from India, and taxing authorities had jurisdiction due to accrued liability pre-Independence. The agreement preserved each Dominion's jurisdiction for assessments. Ultimately, the jurisdictional question was answered affirmatively, with costs awarded to the respondent. In agreement with the detailed analysis provided by Ray, J., G.K. Mitter, J., concurred with the decision.
|
