9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Typographical mistake in the order referring questions to the court, cancellation of registration due to non-compliance with notice under section 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, opportunity provided to the assessee before cancellation of registration.
Analysis: The judgment by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana addressed a typographical error in the order referring questions to the court, where it was mistakenly recorded that five questions were referred instead of one. The case was reheard to correct this mistake, with both parties agreeing on the typographical error in the order dated December 15, 1988. The court recalled the order and proceeded to pass a fresh order to rectify the error, ensuring procedural correctness in the case. Regarding the substantive issue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal referred a common question for the court's opinion concerning the cancellation of registration for a partnership firm for assessment years 1969-70 to 1974-75. The Income-tax Officer initiated proceedings under section 147(a) after receiving information from the sales tax authorities about substantial turnover suppression by the assessee. Despite multiple opportunities, the assessee failed to produce the seized account books, leading to the Income-tax Officer framing assessments under section 144 based on sales tax turnover assessments. The Income-tax Officer subsequently canceled the registration for the relevant assessment years due to the assessee's non-compliance with the notice under section 142(1) of the Income-tax Act. The cancellation was based on the violation of section 144(b) of the Act, which required compliance with notices issued by the Income-tax Officer. The Tribunal upheld the cancellation, noting that the assessee had failed to produce the account books despite due notice and opportunities provided. In its decision, the High Court affirmed the Tribunal's findings, ruling in favor of the Revenue. The court held that the Income-tax Officer had indeed provided the assessee with an opportunity under section 186(2) before canceling the registration, as required by law. The judgment emphasized the importance of compliance with procedural requirements and upheld the cancellation of registration based on the assessee's failure to produce the necessary account books despite repeated notices. The court awarded costs to the Revenue, concluding the case with a clear affirmation of the Tribunal's decision and the legality of the registration cancellation.
|
