9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Reasonable opportunity for the assessee to meet the case. 2. Material evidence for the Tribunal's conclusion on concealed income. 3. Preliminary objections regarding delay, representation, and jurisdiction. 4. Alternative remedy under s. 35 of the Act. 5. Allegation of fraud and suppression of facts. Summary: Issue 1: Reasonable Opportunity for the Assessee The court addressed whether the assessee had a reasonable opportunity to meet the case set up by the department. The Tribunal's earlier decision was challenged, and it was found that the assessee was not given a fair chance to rebut the information against it. This led to the remand of the matter for further investigation. Issue 2: Material Evidence for Tribunal's Conclusion The court examined whether there was any material evidence for the Tribunal's conclusion that the concealed income amounted to Rs. 85,937. The Tribunal's decision was scrutinized, and it was determined that the lack of opportunity for the assessee to counter the evidence rendered the conclusion questionable. Issue 3: Preliminary Objections Several preliminary objections were raised: - Delay: The petition was filed nearly three and a half months after the impugned order, which was not considered unduly delayed. - Representation: It was contended that the petition was improperly filed by the standing counsel for the income-tax department. The court found this contention to be misconceived, affirming the standing counsel's competence. - Jurisdiction: The objection that the Delhi Bench's order was beyond the jurisdiction of the Allahabad High Court was dismissed. The court held that part of the cause of action arose within its jurisdiction, making the petition maintainable. Issue 4: Alternative Remedy under s. 35 of the Act The court considered whether the petitioners had an alternative remedy under s. 35 of the Act. It was noted that the department had already sought rectification from the Delhi Bench, which was dismissed. Thus, the court concluded that no alternative remedy was available. Issue 5: Allegation of Fraud and Suppression of Facts The petitioners alleged that the order from the Delhi Bench was obtained by fraud and suppression of the fact that a writ petition challenging the Tribunal's order had been dismissed. The court found that the Delhi Bench transgressed its jurisdiction by passing an order contrary to the earlier decision of the Allahabad Bench, which had been implicitly upheld by the dismissal of the writ petition. Conclusion: The court allowed the petition, quashing the order of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal dated 30th September 1974, and the application under s. 35 of the Act leading to the order. The petitioners were entitled to their costs from the opposite party.
|
