9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Validity of draft proposed order under section 144B of the Income Tax Act - Requirement of signature and date on the draft order - Effect on subsequent assessment order validity. Analysis: The petitioner's main grievance was that the draft proposed order sent by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) under section 144B(1) was not signed or dated, leading to a challenge on the authenticity of the subsequent assessment order. The Advocate-General argued that the absence of signature and date rendered the order non est, citing precedents from the Calcutta High Court and the Supreme Court emphasizing the importance of a valid notice for jurisdiction. The Supreme Court's stance on the necessity of a valid notice for reassessment proceedings was highlighted. The court delved into the scheme of section 144B of the Income Tax Act, which mandates the ITO to forward a draft proposed order to the assessee when proposing a variation exceeding a specified amount. The purpose is to provide the assessee with an opportunity to raise objections before the final assessment order is passed. The court emphasized that the date of receipt of the draft order triggers the limitation for filing objections, and the signing of the proposed order is not essential as it is merely a draft for future assessment consideration. The court distinguished the requirement of a valid notice for reassessment under section 34 from the forwarding of a draft proposed order under section 144B. While a valid notice is crucial for reassessment, the mere absence of signature or date on the draft order does not invalidate the subsequent assessment order. The court highlighted the importance of the authenticity of the forwarding letter rather than the draft order itself. In this case, the court noted that the assessee participated in the objection process before the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, leading to a reduction in the assessed amount. As an appeal against the final assessment order was pending, the court rejected the special civil application challenging the validity of the assessment order. Additionally, the court dismissed the oral application for certificates under Article 133(1) of the Constitution for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, citing the clarity of section 144B provisions and the absence of substantial legal questions necessitating Supreme Court intervention.
|
