9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
Validity of order passed u/s 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Comprehensive details of the judgment: 1. The assessee challenged the order passed u/s 263 by the Commissioner of Income-tax (CIT), raising a legal issue that the CIT had no jurisdiction to set aside an invalid order. The CIT contended that the Assessing Officer (A.O.) failed to make certain disallowances, and the assessment order u/s 143(1) was erroneous. The CIT argued that since the A.O. had issued a notice u/s 143(2), the assessment u/s 143(1) was not valid. 2. The legal issue raised by the assessee's counsel was based on section 139(10) of the Income-tax Act, which states that a return showing income below the non-taxable limit shall be deemed never to have been furnished. The counsel argued that since the return showed 'nil' income, it was non est, citing relevant case laws to support the argument. 3. The Departmental Representative (D.R.) argued that the CIT rightly invoked section 263 for necessary disallowances. The D.R. referred to a circular specifying that returns of companies under section 139(10) should be accepted. However, the Tribunal found that the circular could not override the clear provision of law in section 139(10). 4. The Tribunal held that the assessee's return, showing 'nil' income, fell under section 139(10) and was deemed never to have been furnished. Any action taken on that return was deemed invalid. The order passed by the CIT u/s 263 was declared without jurisdiction and bad in law. The legal issue raised by the assessee was upheld, leading to the cancellation of the order u/s 263. 5. The Tribunal decided the matter solely on the legal question raised, as the counsel did not argue on merits. The order u/s 263 was deemed invalid, and the appeal succeeded in favor of the assessee.
|
