1964 (8) TMI 3 - SC - Income Tax

Whether there is no substance in this appeal and it must be dismissed with costs? Held that - All that the appellant s writ petition says is that he is given to understand that the amounts sought to be included in the assessments of the appellant have already been found by the income-tax department, Bombay, to be the income of the said Mulji Manilal Kamdar and that he has been assessed on the same amounts by the 6th Income-tax Officer, C-I Ward, Bombay, and recovery proceedings have already been started against him. It is plain that an allegation that the appellant is given to understand does not amount to an allegation on oath about the fact which the appellant knows to be true. It is thus clear that the main object which the appellant had in mind in moving this court under article 136 was to gain time. That is why at the final hearing, not even an attempt was made to raise any question about the jurisdiction of respondent No. 1 or the validity of the law under which he is proceeding against the appellant. Appeal dismissed with cost.

Issues:
1. Validity of the writ petition filed by the appellant under article 226 of the Constitution.
2. Assessment order passed against the appellant by the Income-tax Officer.
3. Appeal preferred by the appellant to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax.
4. Allegations of dilatory proceedings by the appellant.
5. Jurisdiction of the High Court under article 226 in relation to income tax matters.
6. Plea of limitation raised by the appellant.
7. Protective assessment and its validity.
8. Allegations regarding taxation of transactions involving other persons.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed a writ petition under article 226 seeking a writ of certiorari against the Income-tax Officer and the Union of India to quash assessment notices and orders. The High Court summarily dismissed the petition, leading to the appeal to the Supreme Court.

2. The Income-tax Officer assessed the appellant for income tax on Rs. 4,74,046, following notices issued under relevant tax laws. The appellant disputed the assessment, leading to a series of legal proceedings.

3. The appellant appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, alleging improper examination of witnesses and procedural irregularities. The appeal partially succeeded, resulting in a remand of proceedings to the Income-tax Officer.

4. The appellate authority noted the appellant's attempts to delay proceedings through dilatory tactics, indicating a pattern of prolonging the assessment process.

5. The Supreme Court emphasized that the jurisdiction under article 226 does not override the authority of income tax officers to address legal contentions raised by taxpayers. The appellant's attempt to challenge the timeliness of notices was deemed inappropriate for writ proceedings.

6. The appellant raised a plea of limitation regarding the validity of notices issued, but the Court held that such pleas should be raised before the relevant tax authorities and not in writ petitions.

7. The appellant raised the issue of protective assessment, suggesting that the assessment order should be set aside. However, the Court reiterated that such matters should be addressed before the Income-tax Officer and not through writ petitions.

8. Allegations regarding the taxation of transactions involving other individuals were deemed vague and unsupported by evidence. The Court highlighted the lack of specific details or sworn statements to substantiate the appellant's claims.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the appellant's intent to delay proceedings and gain time through legal maneuvers. The Court upheld the validity of the assessment order and reiterated the proper channels for addressing tax-related issues.

← Previous Next →