9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Jurisdiction of Income Tax Officer in issuing notice under section 34 of the Income Tax Act after the expiry of the statutory period. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Jurisdiction of Income Tax Officer The petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of the Income Tax Officer in issuing a notice under section 34 of the Income Tax Act after the expiry of the statutory period. The petitioner contended that the notice was issued beyond the permissible time limit and that there was a total absence of jurisdiction on the part of the Income Tax Officer in Bombay to issue such notice, as the petitioner had always been assessed in Calcutta. The petitioner relied on a decision in S. C. Prashar v. Vasantsen, where the court held that the Income Tax Officer had exceeded his authority in issuing a similar notice, and the want of jurisdiction was apparent on the face of the record. Analysis: The court considered the argument of the petitioner regarding the jurisdiction of the Income Tax Officer and the relevance of the statutory time limit for issuing such notices. The court referred to the decision in S. C. Prashar v. Vasantsen to support the petitioner's contention that the Income Tax Officer had acted beyond his jurisdiction. The court emphasized the importance of jurisdictional limits and the need for strict adherence to statutory provisions in such matters. Issue 2: Delay in Filing the Petition The respondents argued that there was a significant delay in filing the petition challenging the notice issued by the Income Tax Officer in Bombay. They contended that the delay should be a bar to the issuance of a writ of prohibition. However, the petitioner argued that the absence of jurisdiction was apparent on the face of the proceedings, and therefore, a writ of prohibition should be granted irrespective of any delay. Analysis: The court examined the argument regarding the delay in filing the petition and its impact on the issuance of a writ of prohibition. The court considered the principles outlined in Halsbury's Laws of England and the decision in Farquharson v. Morgan to assess the significance of delay in such cases. The court reiterated that the absence of jurisdiction was a crucial factor in determining the grant of a writ of prohibition, and in this case, the lack of jurisdiction by the Income Tax Officer was evident, justifying the issuance of the writ despite the delay in filing the petition. Conclusion: The court held that there was a clear usurpation of jurisdiction by the first respondent, the Income Tax Officer in Bombay, in issuing the notice under section 34 of the Income Tax Act. As the lack of jurisdiction was apparent on the face of the notice, the court found in favor of the petitioner and granted the writ of prohibition against the respondents. The court also addressed the issue of costs, ruling that the respondents would bear the petitioner's costs of the petition.
|
