9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 84, Income Tax Act, 1922 regarding time limit for original assessments under Section 23. 2. Validity of assessment made after the close of the year of assessment without a notice under Section 34. Analysis: 1. The case involved a dispute regarding the interpretation of Section 84 of the Income Tax Act, 1922, specifically concerning the time limit for original assessments under Section 23. The Commissioner of Income Tax referred two questions to the High Court for decision. The first question was whether a time limit is fixed for all original assessments under Section 23, and if so, whether it is one year ending with the last day of the year of assessment. 2. Section 34 of the Income Tax Act was central to the second issue in the case. The question raised was whether an assessment could be made after the close of the year of assessment without a valid notice under Section 34. Section 34 allows for assessments if income has escaped assessment or has been assessed at too low a rate, within one year of the end of that year, provided a notice is served on the taxpayer. 3. The main point of contention was the meaning of "escaped assessment" in Section 34. The court was tasked with determining whether assessment proceedings needed to be completed before the end of the year of assessment for an assessment to be valid. The court rejected the argument that assessment proceedings must be concluded within the year of assessment for the assessment to be valid, stating that Section 34 applies to cases where no assessment has been made or where some income has not been included in the assessment order. 4. The court clarified that Section 34 is applicable when income has escaped assessment, either due to no assessment being made or some income not being included in the assessment order. It does not require assessment proceedings to be completed within the year of assessment. The court cited previous judgments to support its interpretation of the law. 5. The court also addressed an argument presented by the assessee regarding a time limit for making the assessment under Section 23. However, the court declined to consider this argument as it was not part of the questions referred by the Commissioner of Income Tax. Ultimately, the court answered the first question in the negative and stated that the second question did not arise in the case. The court awarded costs to the prevailing party.
|
