9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 33B of the Income-tax Act, 1922. 2. Violation of principles of natural justice. 3. Use of undisclosed materials in the revision order. 4. Validity of the assessment orders made by the Income-tax Officer. Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 33B of the Income-tax Act, 1922: The petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Income-tax to initiate proceedings under section 33B of the repealed Income-tax Act, 1922, after April 1, 1962. However, this point was not argued as it was covered by the judgment in Kalawati Debi Haralalka v. Commissioner of Income-tax, which was against the petitioner. The court noted the stand taken by the petitioner's counsel but did not delve into this issue further. 2. Violation of principles of natural justice: The petitioner argued that the Commissioner relied on materials collected behind her back without giving an opportunity to rebut these materials, thus violating the principles of natural justice and section 33B of the repealed Income-tax Act, 1922. The court emphasized that the principles of natural justice include: - Notice of the charges. - Opportunity to be heard. - Hearing before an impartial tribunal. - An orderly course of procedure to rebut the evidence. The court referred to the case of Rampiari Khemka v. Commissioner of Income-tax, where it was held that reliance on undisclosed grounds and materials violated natural justice. However, in the present case, the court found that the disclosed grounds were sufficient to support the revision order, and the undisclosed materials were merely supporting and not basic to the findings. 3. Use of undisclosed materials in the revision order: The Commissioner found that the petitioner did not reside at 19, Purna Mitra Place, Calcutta, and that the Income-tax Officer accepted the initial capital and income from business without proper enquiry or evidence. The court noted that the Commissioner used materials from undisclosed sources to conclude that the petitioner resided in East Pakistan up to 1959 and at different addresses in Jodhpur and Calcutta at other times. However, the court held that the petitioner's own admissions and the addresses provided in her returns were sufficient to support the conclusion, making the use of undisclosed materials non-fatal to the order. 4. Validity of the assessment orders made by the Income-tax Officer: The Commissioner criticized the Income-tax Officer for making stereotyped and cryptic assessment orders without proper enquiry or evidence. The court agreed that the assessments were made in haste and without adequate investigation, which justified the revision under section 33B. The court distinguished this case from Rampiari Khemka, where the Commissioner found fraud and collusion, by noting that the present case involved a lack of enquiry and evidence rather than manipulation of records. Conclusion: The court held that the Commissioner of Income-tax was justified in revising the assessment orders due to the lack of proper enquiry and evidence by the Income-tax Officer. The use of undisclosed materials as supporting evidence did not invalidate the revision order, as the disclosed grounds were sufficient. The principles of natural justice were not violated, and the rule was discharged with costs. The court clarified that it did not dissent from the judgment in Rampiari Khemka, which was decided on its own facts.
|
