9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Income-tax Officer's order dated March 30, 1963, dropping the proceedings started under section 22(2) could be the subject of an appeal under section 30 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Appealability of the Income-tax Officer's Order: The primary issue in this case is whether the Income-tax Officer's (ITO) order dated March 30, 1963, which dropped the proceedings initiated under section 22(2), is appealable under section 30 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The facts reveal that the assessee, a company engaged in the manufacture and sale of matches, was served a notice under section 22(2) on September 9, 1959. The assessee failed to submit a return within the prescribed time but later submitted a return on August 25, 1961, disclosing a loss of Rs. 97,660. The ITO concluded that the assessee's claim for loss determination was barred by the limitation under section 22(2A) and dropped the proceedings, stating no further obligation to complete the assessment. The assessee appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC), who dismissed the appeal, holding that section 30(1) does not provide for an appeal against the ITO's action of not passing an order. The AAC noted, "Section 30(1) does not provide for an appeal where the Income-tax Officer has failed to pass an order even though his refusal to pass an order may not be in accordance with law. No appeal is provided for against the Income-tax Officer's action." The assessee further appealed to the Appellate Tribunal, which also dismissed the appeal. The Tribunal held, "If no appeal is provided against a particular order passed by the Income-tax Officer, then the assessee cannot file an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and ask for its being entertained on a liberal interpretation of the provisions of section 30. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner cannot assume a power which the statute has not given him." 2. Substance Over Form in Construing Orders: Mr. B. C. Dutt, representing the assessee, argued that the substance of the ITO's order should be considered over its form. He cited several precedents to support the view that the substance of an order is paramount in determining its nature and effect. The court acknowledged that the principle of considering the substance over form is well-settled and that provisions regarding rights of appeal should be liberally construed. However, the court emphasized that the true construction of the ITO's order is crucial. 3. Determination and Computation of Loss: Mr. Dutt contended that the ITO's order, in substance, adjudicated the assessee's claim for loss by implicitly computing the loss as nil. He argued that the ITO should have assessed the loss based on the return filed, even if it was beyond the prescribed time. Conversely, Mr. Suhas Sen, representing the department, argued that the ITO's order did not determine or compute the loss but merely dropped the proceedings due to the late filing of the return. He maintained that the right of appeal is statutory and cannot be extended beyond the provisions of section 30. The court examined the relevant provisions of section 30, which allows appeals against the amount of loss computed under section 24. The court concluded that the ITO's order did not reject the assessee's claim for loss but simply did not determine the loss due to the late return. Therefore, there was no computation of loss, and the order was not appealable under section 30. 4. Relevant Case Law: The court referred to the decision in All India Groundnut Syndicate Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, where it was held that the right to appeal under section 30 arises only if there is a computation of loss. The court also cited the Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Kulu Valley Transport Co. P. Ltd., which held that a return filed before assessment is valid and must be considered for loss determination. Conclusion: The court concluded that the ITO's order did not compute the loss and, therefore, was not appealable under section 30, regardless of how liberally the provision is interpreted. The question was answered in the negative, against the assessee, and in favor of the revenue. There was no order as to costs. Separate Judgments: HAZRA J. concurred with the judgment. Question answered in the negative.
|
