9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Challenge to the validity of rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules u/s 250 and 251 of the Income-tax Act.
The judgment of the High Court of Allahabad, delivered by Justice Satish Chandra, addressed the challenge to the validity of rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules. The petitioner's case involved three assessment years, and the Income-tax Officer added cash deposits to the assessable income as income from undisclosed sources. The petitioner filed appeals seeking to produce additional evidence to disprove the cash deposits finding, which was refused by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner citing rule 46A. The petitioner contended that rule 46A was ultra vires sections 250 and 251 of the Income-tax Act. Section 250 provides for an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner against assessment orders, allowing for further inquiry and consideration of additional grounds. Section 251 outlines the powers of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, including the consideration of matters not raised initially. Rule 46A, added in 1973, restricts the production of additional evidence except in specific circumstances, preserving the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's power to make further inquiries as per section 250. The Court analyzed the provisions of rule 46A in conjunction with sections 250 and 251 of the Income-tax Act. It noted that rule 46A did not diminish the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's authority to conduct further inquiries or permit the appellant to raise new points. Previously, the appellant had no inherent right to adduce additional evidence, but rule 46A granted specific circumstances for such production. The Court concluded that rule 46A did not contravene sections 250 and 251 of the Act, as it supplemented the appellant's right to present additional evidence without impeding the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's powers. The petitioner's counsel did not raise any issues regarding the merits of the appellate order before the Court, as an appeal was pending before the Tribunal. Consequently, the petition challenging the validity of rule 46A was dismissed by the High Court of Allahabad, with costs imposed on the petitioner.
|
