9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officers in making assessment orders. 2. Violation of principles of natural justice. 3. Validity of assessments based on initial capital and income from business. Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officers in making assessment orders: The appellant received a notice under section 33B of the Income-tax Act, 1922, challenging the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officers who made the assessment orders for the years 1953-54 to 1961-62. The Commissioner found that the Income-tax Officer, "B" Ward, 24-Parganas, had no jurisdiction over the appellant, rendering all the assessments ab initio null and void. The appellant provided various addresses in her returns, none of which corresponded to the jurisdiction of the assessing officers. The court upheld the Commissioner's decision, emphasizing that the assessment orders were made without jurisdiction based on the appellant's own statements in the returns. The court concluded that the materials furnished by the appellant herself were sufficient to determine the lack of jurisdiction, and it was unnecessary to rely on additional evidence regarding her residence in East Pakistan. 2. Violation of principles of natural justice: The appellant argued that the Commissioner relied on materials collected behind her back without giving her an opportunity to rebut them, thus violating the principles of natural justice. The court acknowledged that if an order is made relying on undisclosed materials, it must be treated as bad for violating natural justice. However, the court found that the Commissioner primarily relied on the appellant's own statements in her returns to conclude that the assessments were made without jurisdiction. The court referred to several Supreme Court decisions, including Union of India v. T. R. Varma and State of Mysore v. Shivabasappa Shivappa Makapur, which established that a party must be given an opportunity to contest materials used against them. The court concluded that there was no violation of natural justice as the primary basis for the Commissioner's order was the appellant's own admissions. 3. Validity of assessments based on initial capital and income from business: The Commissioner found that the appellant's claims regarding initial capital and income from pawn-broking business were unsupported by evidence. The appellant did not maintain proper books of account, and there was no evidence of her carrying on a pawn-broking business. The court noted that the assessments were made hastily without proper enquiry, as evidenced by the short time between the filing of returns and the issuance of assessment orders. The court upheld the Commissioner's decision to set aside the assessments, finding that the appellant had full knowledge of the facts and that the assessments were made without proper investigation. The court also referenced the Supreme Court decision in S. N. Namasivayam Chettiar v. Commissioner of Income-tax, which allowed the use of undisclosed materials if they did not form the basis of the decision. Conclusion: The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Commissioner's order to set aside the assessment orders for the years 1953-54 to 1961-62. The court found that the assessments were made without jurisdiction and in violation of the principles of natural justice, as the appellant was not given an opportunity to rebut undisclosed materials. The court also upheld the Commissioner's findings regarding the lack of evidence for the appellant's claims of initial capital and income from business. The appeal was dismissed with costs, and the judgment was certified for two counsel.
|
