9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Applicability of the limitation period under section 153(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1972-73. Analysis: The judgment in question revolves around the interpretation of the limitation period specified in section 153(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, concerning the assessment year 1972-73. The case originated from a search conducted on the assessee's premises in 1974, where doubts arose regarding the genuineness of certain documents, particularly the revenue stamps in the attendance/wages register. The Income-tax Officer, after receiving a report confirming suspicions of fabrication, initiated proceedings against the assessee for concealing income and understating it in the return filed under section 139(4) of the Act. The Income-tax Officer framed the assessment in 1976, disallowing certain expenses claimed by the assessee. The key contention was whether the extended limitation period of eight years under section 153(1)(b) applied to the case. Upon appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld the Income-tax Officer's decision, citing the existence of material indicating concealment of income within the extended limitation period. The Tribunal, on further appeal, affirmed the decision, prompting the assessee to challenge the applicability of the extended time limit under section 153(1)(b) through a reference question. The Tribunal's finding emphasized that the suspicions regarding the fabricated register and income concealment arose within the initial two-year limitation period and were supported by evidence from the Nasik Government Printing Press. The Tribunal concluded that the extended limitation period was indeed applicable in this case. The judgment also addressed the legal precedents cited by both parties. While the assessee relied on certain cases for their argument, the court found an overstatement of law in those instances, indicating that they were not applicable to the current scenario. Conversely, the Revenue's counsel referred to a different case, highlighting a potential understatement of law. Despite these references, the court held that the Tribunal's decision on the applicability of the extended limitation period was justified, ultimately ruling in favor of the Revenue. The judgment concluded by answering the reference question in the affirmative, without awarding any costs to either party.
|
