9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Validity of assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 due to lack of tax computation in the order.
Summary: The High Court of Karnataka addressed the issue of the validity of an assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which lacked the computation of tax within the order. The assessee, a partner in several firms, challenged the assessment order on the grounds that the tax payable had not been computed and quantified in the order itself. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) had computed the income, indicated advance tax paid and T.D.S., but the sum payable was determined on a separate unsigned sheet accompanying the assessment. The AAC upheld the validity of the order, stating that the tax had been quantified and communicated to the appellant, despite the absence of the ITO's signature on the tax computation sheet. The assessee then appealed to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, which allowed the appeal based on a previous judgment and held that the assessment order was invalid as it did not contain the computation of tax signed by the ITO. The High Court analyzed the provisions of s. 143 of the Income Tax Act, emphasizing the mandatory nature of determining the sum payable by the assessee in the assessment order. It referenced precedents from the Privy Council and other High Courts, highlighting the importance of proper tax determination in assessment orders. The Court noted that while the separate tax computation sheet lacked the ITO's signature, it still formed part of the assessment order and was used to issue the demand notice to the assessee. Referring to s. 292B of the Income Tax Act, introduced in 1975, the Court held that any mistake, defect, or omission in a return or assessment shall not invalidate it if it aligns with the intent and purpose of the Act. As the assessment order in question was made after the introduction of s. 292B, the Court concluded that it was in conformity with the Act's requirements. Ultimately, the Court reframed the question and ruled in favor of the Revenue, stating that the assessment order was not invalid u/s 143(3) and did not need to be annulled. No costs were awarded in this matter.
|
