9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Application under article 226 for writ of certiorari and mandamus against Income-tax Officer's order. 2. Assessment of income-tax for multiple years and subsequent demand notices. 3. Petitioner's contention on default, penalty imposition, and coercive measures. 4. Interpretation of section 45 of the Income-tax Act regarding default and appeal filing. 5. Discretion of Income-tax Officer in treating assessee as defaulter. 6. Comparison with previous case law on automatic stay of tax realization. 7. Petitioner's argument on arbitrary exercise of discretion by Income-tax authorities. 8. Allegation of inadequate steps in realizing amount from third party. 9. Court's analysis and rejection of all petitioner's contentions. The judgment involves a petition under article 226 seeking a writ of certiorari and mandamus against an Income-tax Officer's order dated May 27, 1955, assessing the petitioner for income-tax for multiple years. The petitioner filed appeals against the assessment orders, leading to a demand notice and subsequent coercive measures for tax payment. The petitioner argued that filing appeals prevented default and coercive measures. The court analyzed section 45 of the Income-tax Act, noting that appeal filing does not automatically stay tax payment, and discretion lies with the Income-tax Officer. The court cited case law to support discretionary power of the Officer. The petitioner's claim of arbitrary discretion was rejected as the Officer acted within bounds by giving time for payment and considering instalment options. The petitioner also alleged inadequate steps in realizing funds from a third party, which the court dismissed, emphasizing the petitioner's responsibility to facilitate payment. Ultimately, the court rejected the petition, finding no merit in the petitioner's contentions and dismissed the case without costs.
|
