9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Validity of the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Legality of the assessment order passed by the Income-tax Officer under section 144B of the Act. 3. Ownership of a gold bar recovered from a locker. 4. Consideration of evidence and affidavits in determining ownership of the gold bar. 5. Compliance of the consequential assessment order with the directions of the Commissioner of Income-tax. Analysis: 1. The petitioner challenged the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax and the consequential assessment order by the Income-tax Officer. The petitioner argued that the Income-tax Officer's order, based on directions from the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, was illegal post the amendment of section 144B of the Act. However, the court found that the amendment was not retrospective, and the proceedings were valid as the draft order was issued before the amendment. The court relied on the General Clauses Act and upheld the jurisdiction of the officers to proceed based on pre-amendment directions. 2. The petitioner disputed the Commissioner's finding that a gold bar found in a locker belonged to them, claiming it was held on trust by their wife. The court held that the Commissioner's determination was a factual finding based on evidence. The court noted the petitioner's initial claim of ownership when the locker was opened and dismissed the subsequent trust claim as an afterthought. The court found no reason to interfere with the Commissioner's conclusion regarding ownership of the gold bar. 3. The petitioner contended that a letter supporting the trust claim was not considered. The court examined the Commissioner's order and noted various circumstances supporting the ownership finding. The court highlighted the lack of evidence regarding the letter's authenticity and upheld the Commissioner's decision based on the evidence presented, including the petitioner's statement and family trust history. 4. Regarding the consequential assessment order, the petitioner argued it contravened the Commissioner's directions. The court, having found no error in the Commissioner's order, deemed the assessment order consistent with it. The court advised the petitioner to pursue statutory remedies for challenging the assessment order instead of seeking relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. 5. Ultimately, the court dismissed the writ petition, finding no merit in the petitioner's arguments and upholding the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax and the Income-tax Officer. The court emphasized the availability of statutory remedies for challenging assessment orders and cited relevant case law to support its decision.
|
