9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income-tax Act for revising assessment orders. 2. Interpretation of "regular assessment" under section 214 of the Income-tax Act. 3. Validity of the notice issued under section 263 of the Act. 4. Compliance with court directions in assessment proceedings. Analysis: The High Court of Calcutta addressed the jurisdictional issue under section 263 of the Income-tax Act in a case involving a writ petition by a jute factory. The petitioner sought the cancellation of a notice issued by the Income-tax Officer on the grounds that the assessment order for the relevant year had been set aside previously by the court. The petitioner argued that the subsequent assessment made by the Income-tax Officer should be considered the "regular assessment" under section 214 of the Act. The court examined the legality of the notice issued under section 263 and the contention that the assessment orders were in compliance with legal principles established in previous cases such as Chloride India Ltd. v. CIT [1977] 106 ITR 38. The court considered the arguments presented by both parties and concluded that the impugned notice did not suffer from any infirmity and did not infringe upon the petitioner's rights. The court found no merit in the writ petition and discharged the rule, vacating all interim orders. The court delved into the interpretation of "regular assessment" under section 214 of the Act, analyzing the assessment history in the case. It noted that the original assessment had been set aside, leading to subsequent assessments and rectifications by the Income-tax Officer. The court examined whether interest under section 214 should be allowed based on the subsequent assessment and whether the Income-tax Officer's orders were erroneous in law. The court referred to the decision in Chloride India Ltd. case to understand the concept of "regular assessment" and emphasized that the assessment made by the Income-tax Officer initially or following the court's direction should be considered as such. The court concluded that the impugned notice was issued within the jurisdiction and did not warrant intervention from the writ court unless there was a lack of jurisdiction or procedural error. The judgment highlighted the compliance with court directions in the assessment proceedings, noting that the Income-tax Officer had rectified the assessment orders to allow interest under section 214 of the Act. The court examined the contentions raised by both parties regarding the legality of the assessment process and the notice issued under section 263. It emphasized that the petitioner would have the opportunity to present relevant facts during adjudication by the proper authority. The court found no grounds to quash the proceedings and ruled against the petitioner, discharging the rule and ordering a stay of operation for a fortnight without costs.
|
