9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (5) TMI 1555 - HC - Income TaxApplication of section 33AB(7) - Tea development account - withdrawn by the assessee from the Deposit Account - HELD THAT - No steps having been taken by the revenue to get the matter heard on merits and the alleged failure of the revenue to take any steps with regard to the appeal 2018 (7) TMI 1981 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT are all relevant facts for establishing whether there was acquiescence of the revenue to the existing orders of the tribunal or whether the department accepted those orders. In those circumstances, we admit the appeal and direct that the same be heard on the question of law whether there was proper application of section 33AB(7) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, taking into account the conduct of the revenue referred to hereinabove.
Issues: Proper application of section 33AB(7) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Analysis: The High Court of Calcutta addressed the substantial question of law raised by the revenue regarding the correct application of section 33AB(7) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court noted complications arising from a previous appeal dismissed due to technical reasons related to the service of notice. The revenue argued that there was no adjudication on merits, while the assessee contended that the impugned order of the tribunal followed previous decisions and hence did not commit any error in law or facts. Another Division Bench's order from 2018 concerning a similar appeal was also referenced, highlighting the revenue's failure to take steps in that appeal. The Court acknowledged that the proper application of section 33AB(7) had not been decided on merits, considering factors like the dismissal of the previous appeal and the revenue's inaction. Consequently, the Court admitted the appeal for hearing specifically on the question of law related to the application of section 33AB(7), taking into account the conduct of the revenue. The Court dispensed with the issuance and service of notice to the respondent since they were represented by counsel. The advocate-on-record for the appellant was directed to file informal paper books by a specified date, with the appeal scheduled for hearing on a set date. Additionally, the stay application related to the appeal was disposed of accordingly. The Court also mentioned that a certified photocopy of the order would be provided to the parties upon compliance with formalities.
|
