9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Challenge against the order of the Additional Income-tax Officer 2. Provisional assessment under section 23B of the Indian Income-tax Act 3. Validity of the assessment order 4. Notice requirement for final assessment 5. Invocation of extraordinary jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution 6. Discretion of the learned Judge in issuing certiorari Analysis: 1. Challenge against the order of the Additional Income-tax Officer: The appeal was filed against the judgment of Justice Kumarayya, who dismissed a petition seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Additional Income-tax Officer. The appellant, a partner in a registered firm, had submitted an income tax return for the assessment year 1951-52, declaring his income, including a provisional sum based on the firm's income. The firm's assessment was completed later, resulting in a higher income for the appellant. The Income-tax Officer made a final assessment based on the revised income, leading to the challenge of the order. 2. Provisional assessment under section 23B of the Indian Income-tax Act: The key issue was whether the assessment made in 1951 was provisional or final. Section 23B of the Act empowers the Income-tax Officer to make provisional assessments before the final assessment. The appellant's request for assessment based on the return, with the understanding that it could be revised later, indicated a provisional nature. The court opined that the assessment fell within the purview of section 23B(1) or (2), considering the circumstances and the appellant's request. 3. Validity of the assessment order: The court rejected the appellant's challenge to the validity of the order, citing the doctrine of estoppel under section 115 of the Evidence Act. The appellant's conduct and representation to the Department influenced the assessment process, precluding him from disputing the order's validity after the firm's final assessment. 4. Notice requirement for final assessment: The appellant argued that the absence of a notice for the final assessment vitiated the order. However, the court held that the jurisdiction to assess and levy income tax was not solely dependent on the notice under section 35 of the Act. The charging sections provided the authority to levy tax, and the failure to issue a notice did not render the proceedings void, especially when the appellant was present during the firm's assessment. 5. Invocation of extraordinary jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution: The court emphasized that the jurisdiction under article 226 should serve justice and not injustice. The appellant's attempt to challenge an order he influenced would be an abuse of the court's jurisdiction. Therefore, the court dismissed the appeal considering the circumstances and the appellant's actions. 6. Discretion of the learned Judge in issuing certiorari: The court highlighted that the issuance of certiorari was at the discretion of the learned Judge, and interference was warranted only if the discretion was exercised erroneously. In this case, no such error was found, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. In conclusion, the appeal challenging the order of the Additional Income-tax Officer was dismissed, considering the provisional nature of the assessment, the appellant's conduct, and the jurisdictional aspects under the Indian Income-tax Act and the Constitution.
|
