9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to notice issued by Income-tax Officer under section 34 for escaped income of a specific amount for a particular assessment year. Analysis: The judgment concerns a challenge to a notice issued by the Income-tax Officer under section 34 for escaped income of a certain amount for the assessment year 1944-45 falling under section 34(1)(a). The petitioner contends that the notice is defective as it fails to meet the two conditions specified in the proviso to section 34(1). Before the amendment, there were limitations on the period within which notices could be issued under section 34(1)(a) and (b). However, the amendment removed the time limitation, but introduced three safeguards for the assessee, including restrictions on issuing notices for years prior to March 31, 1941, and for escaped income below a specified amount without the Central Board of Revenue's approval. In this case, the notice was for an amount less than the specified limit, and the Central Board of Revenue had not reviewed the matter, rendering the notice questionable. The petitioner argues that the notice falls under section 34(3), which allows notices without time limitations in certain circumstances, such as when giving effect to a direction in an order under specific sections. The contention is that the notice was issued to implement a direction in the Appellate Tribunal's order, thus falling under the second proviso to section 34(3). However, the court clarifies that even without time limitations post-amendment, the safeguards in the proviso to section 34(1) must still be met for notices issued beyond eight years. This means that the conditions set out in the proviso to section 34(1) must be satisfied irrespective of whether the notice is issued due to a direction in an order of an Income-tax authority. Ultimately, the court finds the notice issued by the Income-tax Officer to be invalid due to non-compliance with the statutory requirements. The petition is granted, and the respondents are directed to cover the costs. The court did not entertain additional contentions presented by the petitioner beyond the limitation issue. The judgment highlights the impact of the amendment on limitation periods for issuing notices under section 34, emphasizing the need for adherence to the prescribed conditions even in the absence of specific time constraints.
|
