9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved: The judgment addresses the issue of whether the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax applied his mind before initiating proceedings under section 263(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and whether he abdicated his function in favor of the Income-tax Officer.
Summary: The judgment pertains to a partnership firm with two partners and two minors admitted to the benefits of partnership. The Income-tax Officer canceled the registration for certain assessment years due to the minors attaining majority without the necessary updates to the partnership deed. For the assessment year 1968-69, the Income-tax Officer sought cancellation of registration from the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, who then initiated proceedings under section 263. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner did not apply his mind to the facts and practically abdicated his function to the Income-tax Officer. The High Court agreed with the Tribunal's conclusion, emphasizing that the Commissioner must properly consider all facts before invoking revisional powers under section 263. In the judgment, it was argued that the Income-tax Officer had the authority to cancel the registration for the assessment year 1968-69 based on previous cancellations for preceding years. The High Court noted that the Commissioner should have questioned the need for his intervention when the Income-tax Officer approached him, rather than immediately invoking revisional powers. The Court agreed with the Tribunal's finding that the Commissioner initiated proceedings under section 263 without adequately considering all the circumstances of the case. Consequently, the High Court ruled in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue, affirming the Tribunal's decision.
|
