9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (3) TMI 458 - HC - Indian LawsJurisdiction - assessments made by the Income- Tax Officer Trust- cum -Estate Duty Circle - Whether, the Income -Tax Officer, Trust -cum-Estate Duty Circle appointed by the Government to perform the duties under the Estate Duty Act was competent to frame an assessment under the Estate Duty Act? - Whether the Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that the order passed by the Income -Tax Officer, Trust-cum -Estate Duty Circle was non -est and null and void? - Whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified in permitting the Accountable Person to raise the issue questioning the legality of the assessment made by the Income -Tax Officer, Trust -cum -Estate Duty Circle? Held that - the power to appoint the Controllers for the purposes of the Estate Duty Act, is with the Central Government only. By notification dated 03.05.1976, the Board directed Income -Tax Officers, Trust Circle, Nagpur, to perform those functions in relation to a specific category of estate. This act of Board, therefore, shows that these Income -Tax Officers, Trust Office, Nagpur, were not already Controllers. Section 15 of General Clauses Act, 1897, has no bearing on this issue as that section presupposes appointment by an authority empowered by the statute to make it. Appeal allowed in part - decided partly in favor of Revenue and partly in favor of assessee.
Issues:
Competency of Income-Tax Officer Trust-cum-Estate Duty Circle to frame assessments under Estate Duty Act; Legality of assessment made by Income-Tax Officer Trust-cum-Estate Duty Circle; Permissibility of raising challenges to assessment at final hearing by second Appellate Authority. Analysis: The judgment delves into the questions referred to the Court under Section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. The primary issues revolve around the competency of the Income-Tax Officer "Trust-cum-Estate Duty Circle" to conduct assessments under the Estate Duty Act. The Court scrutinizes whether the assessments made by the Income-Tax Officer were inherently illegal and if the order passed by the Officer was null and void. Additionally, the judgment explores whether challenging the legality of the assessment at the final hearing by the second Appellate Authority was permissible. The Court notes that the power to appoint authorities under the Estate Duty Act lies with the Central Government, not the Board. The judgment emphasizes that the Board's directive to Income-Tax Officers to perform duties under the Estate Duty Act does not automatically confer them the status of Controllers. The legal analysis highlights the provisions of Section 4 of the Act, which delineate the authorities and their appointment processes, underscoring that the Board lacks the authority to appoint Controllers under the Act. Further, the judgment discusses the General Clauses Act, 1897, and its inapplicability to the issue at hand, as the law does not empower the Board to appoint Controllers for the Estate Duty Act. The Court concludes that the Income-Tax Officers in question were not Controllers as per the Act's provisions. Consequently, the Court finds no grounds to deviate from a prior judgment that established the Officers' lack of authority to conduct assessments under the Estate Duty Act. Regarding the permissibility of raising challenges to assessments at the final hearing, the judgment highlights a previous decision where the Appellate Tribunal allowed a pure question of law to be raised and answered without factual verification. The Court observes that the Appellate Tribunal's decision in this regard was sound, as the question did not necessitate factual scrutiny. Ultimately, the Court answers the referred questions affirmatively against the revenue department, except for one question where the ruling goes against the department. No costs are awarded based on the circumstances of the case.
|
