9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Application for writ of mandamus against the Commissioner of Income Tax under Sec. 66(3) of the Income Tax Act. 2. Tenability of the application under the new amendment of Sec. 66 of the Income Tax Act. 3. Interpretation of the application for reference under Sec. 66(2) in relation to the orders of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and the Commissioner of Income Tax. 4. Application of the amended provisions to pending cases and the requirement for making a reference from the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. 5. Consideration of the application as one arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax and the contention regarding prejudicial impact on the assessee's interests. Analysis: 1. The judgment involves an application for a writ of mandamus against the Commissioner of Income Tax under Sec. 66(3) of the Income Tax Act. The applicant had been assessed to income tax by the Income Tax Officer, and subsequent appeals and requests for revision were made to higher authorities, leading to the application for a writ of mandamus against the Commissioner of Income Tax. 2. The tenability of the application was challenged based on the new amendment of Sec. 66 of the Income Tax Act. The argument presented was that no reference lies against an order of the Income Tax Commissioner under Sec. 33 unless the order involves an enhancement of the assessment or is prejudicial to the assessee. The applicant's counsel contended that the application for reference should be considered in the context of the Assistant Commissioner's order, not the Commissioner's decision. 3. The interpretation of the application for reference under Sec. 66(2) was crucial in determining its validity. The applicant argued that the application was made against the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, while the Commissioner of Income Tax maintained that the application was against his own decision. The timeline of events and the specific language used in the application were analyzed to establish the nature of the application for reference. 4. The judgment addressed the application of the amended provisions to pending cases and the requirement for making a reference from the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax within the stipulated period. It was clarified that the pending cases would be governed by the Act as amended, and failure to make a reference from the Assistant Commissioner's order within the specified time frame rendered the application invalid. 5. The consideration of the application as one arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax was pivotal. The argument regarding the prejudicial impact on the assessee's interests and the need for the application to align with the provisions of the Income Tax Act were thoroughly examined. Ultimately, the application was dismissed based on the preliminary objection, and costs were awarded to the non-applicants. The judgment did not delve into the merits of the application due to its dismissal.
|
