9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Legality of the order passed by the Income-tax Officer while framing the assessment without issuing a fresh notice under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Analysis: The writ petition challenges the legality of the assessment order passed by the Income-tax Officer without issuing a fresh notice under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The petitioner filed her income tax return showing her income as 25% of her share in a firm. The Income-tax Officer, however, assessed her income at a higher amount based on an order passed in the case of the firm. The petitioner argued that without a fresh notice under section 143(2), the assessment was violative of the Act. The Revenue, in response, contended that the assessment was in accordance with the law and that a fresh notice under section 143(2) was not specifically denied. The key issue for consideration was whether the assessment order could be sustained in law without issuing a fresh notice under section 143(2) of the Act. The Court analyzed the arguments and held that the approach of the Revenue in framing the assessment was incorrect. It was emphasized that for an assessment under section 143(1) of the Act, the record should be based on the income tax return and accompanying documents of the assessee, not records of other entities. If the Income-tax Officer found the income figure unacceptable, a fresh notice under section 143(2) was necessary before changing the income amount. The Court clarified that the firm's records could not be considered part of the individual assessee's case without a fresh notice. The Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the Income-tax Officer's order, and further annulled the recovery proceedings. The Income-tax Officer was directed to proceed in finalizing the assessment of the petitioner according to law. The judgment highlighted the importance of following due process and issuing necessary notices under the Income-tax Act for accurate assessments.
|
