9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Jurisdiction to initiate proceedings for reassessment under s. 59 of the E.D. Act, 1953 based on information from the audit department. Analysis: The petitioner's father passed away, and the petitioner, as the "accountable person," filed an account of the estate. The respondent initially granted exemption for the house property under s. 33(1)(n) of the E.D. Act, 1953. Subsequently, the respondent issued a notice under s. 59 of the Act, alleging that property chargeable to estate duty had escaped assessment. The petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of the respondent to initiate reassessment proceedings. The main issue was whether the information from the audit department justified the issuance of the notice under s. 59 of the Act. The court analyzed the relevant provisions and previous decisions. The Supreme Court's ruling in Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT was considered, where it was held that the opinion of an internal audit party cannot be considered "information" for the purpose of issuing a notice under the Income Tax Act. Applying this precedent, the court concluded that the audit department's view on the exemption of the land could not constitute valid information to justify the notice under s. 59(b) of the E.D. Act, 1953. The court emphasized that the circular of the Board clarifying the exemption of land appurtenant to a residential building was not necessary to consider in this case. The only information relied upon for the notice under s. 59(b) was the audit department's view, as recorded in the order-sheet. As this view did not qualify as valid information, the respondent lacked jurisdiction to proceed with reassessment. Consequently, the court allowed the petition, quashed the reassessment proceedings, and directed parties to bear their own costs. Any outstanding security deposit was to be refunded to the petitioner.
|
