9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are related to the interpretation and application of provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, specifically regarding the assessment procedures and the powers of the Commissioner u/s 263. Assessment Year 1972-73: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal referred questions of law to the High Court regarding the correctness of the Commissioner's revision of the Income Tax Officer's assessment orders. The Tribunal questioned whether the failure to refer the draft order to the IAC u/s 144B justified the Commissioner's revision. The Tribunal also considered the direction to the ITO to proceed afresh in the matter. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals by the assessee, leading to the reference to the High Court. The Commissioner, u/s 263, found the ITO's assessment orders to be erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue's interest due to non-compliance with s. 144B procedures. The Commissioner set aside the assessment orders and directed the ITO to make fresh assessments. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's revision, stating that there was a case for inquiry and directed the ITO to proceed afresh. The High Court held that the orders were not prejudicial to the Revenue due to non-compliance with s. 144B, based on a previous decision. The High Court answered question 1 for the assessment year 1972-73 in the negative against the Revenue. Regarding question 2 for the assessment year 1972-73, the High Court considered the applicability of s. 52 of the Act. The Commissioner directed the ITO to consider s. 52 based on the material on record. The Tribunal found no issue with the Commissioner's order, as the ITO had not specifically addressed the matter. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, answering question 2 in the affirmative against the assessee. Assessment Year 1973-74: For this assessment year, the Tribunal questioned the justification of the Commissioner's revision based on the non-referral of the draft order to the IAC u/s 144B. The High Court's decision on this issue was not explicitly mentioned in the provided text. In conclusion, the High Court answered the reference questions accordingly, with each party bearing their own costs.
|
