1929 (5) TMI 2 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of the right to appeal under Section 30(1) of the Income Tax Act regarding assessments made under Section 23(4).
2. Determining whether an assessee can appeal to the Assistant Commissioner against an assessment under Section 23(4) when claiming non-liability under the Act.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the interpretation of the right to appeal under Section 30(1) of the Income Tax Act concerning assessments made under Section 23(4). The central issue is whether an assessee can appeal to the Assistant Commissioner against an assessment under Section 23(4) when asserting non-liability under the Act. The court deliberates on the provision that no appeal shall lie in respect of an assessment made under Section 23(4), emphasizing that the law penalizes non-compliance with Income Tax Officer requisitions by depriving the right of appeal. The court clarifies that the mere fact of assessment under Section 23(4) does not automatically bar an appeal; the circumstances must genuinely fall within the scope of the section for the proviso to apply.

The judgment highlights the doctrine that there is no inherent right of appeal, and a statutory provision is necessary to confer such a right. Section 30(1) outlines the right of appeal, subject to the proviso barring appeals for assessments under Section 23(4). The court emphasizes that the proviso applies uniformly to all cases where assessments are made under Section 23(4, regardless of the grounds for appeal. It rejects the contention that distinctions should be made based on the validity or merits of the assessment, maintaining that once the appeal is barred, no grounds can be availed by the assessee.

The judgment further discusses a case involving an assessee challenging an assessment under Section 23(4) based on non-liability due to being a foreign visitor. It acknowledges potential hardships resulting from the strict application of the law but underscores that it is the legislature's role to address such issues. The court asserts that courts must enforce the law as written, without being swayed by extraneous circumstances, and concludes that the proviso to Section 30(1) precludes an appeal against assessments made under Section 23(4).

In a related case, the judgment addresses a situation where an assessee contested an assessment under Section 23(4) based on residency claims. The court affirms that the proviso to Section 30 bars appeals on the question of liability to assessment when assessments are ostensibly made under Section 23(4. It clarifies that the Assistant Commissioner's role is to ensure the Income Tax Officer followed the necessary procedures for assessments under Section 23(4, and if so, the appeal cannot be entertained. The court upholds the statutory intent to compel assesses to provide all relevant information to Income Tax Officers for accurate assessments.

The judgment, supported by concurring opinions, underscores the statutory framework's strict application regarding appeals against assessments made under Section 23(4) of the Income Tax Act. It emphasizes the legislative intent to penalize non-compliance and uphold the statutory provisions governing the right to appeal in income tax assessment matters.