9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Challenge to tax recovery proceedings based on cancellation of assessments by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, validity of tax recovery certificates, requirement for modification of tax recovery certificates under section 225 of the Income-tax Act.
Analysis: The petitioner-company challenged tax recovery proceedings initiated by the Tax Recovery Officer based on tax recovery certificates issued in 1968, 1969, 1970, and 1971. The company contended that its assessments for the years 1957-58 to 1966-67 were set aside by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, directing fresh assessments. The company requested cancellation of the tax recovery certificates due to the absence of outstanding demands post the assessment cancellations. The respondents failed to file an affidavit-in-reply, and during the hearing, the Income-tax Department representative could not provide relevant information or assessment records, leading to a lack of clarity on the assessments' status. Regarding the assessment year 1966-67, the Income-tax Officer argued that the assessment was not entirely set aside but only partially, with directions for a fresh assessment on specific grounds. The company's counsel emphasized the need for adjustments against the income for 1966-67 based on the completion of earlier assessments. The counsel asserted that the Income-tax Officer should modify the tax recovery certificates under section 225 of the Income-tax Act when assessments are partly set aside for fresh evaluation following appellate orders. The Tax Recovery Officer's notice for settling a sale proclamation did not specify the years covered by the tax recovery certificates, leading to ambiguity regarding the certificates' validity post the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's cancellations of assessments for the years 1957-58 to 1966-67. While assessments for most years were set aside, the status of the assessment for 1958-59 and the partial setting aside of the 1966-67 assessment remained unclear. None of the assessment orders had been completed, further complicating the situation. The court found merit in the writ petition, making the rule absolute in favor of the petitioner-company by granting relief as per prayer clauses (b), (c), and (d). No costs were awarded in this matter.
|
