9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Jurisdictional authority to issue notice under section 34(1)(a) for reassessment. Analysis: The judgment pertains to a reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, regarding the validity of an assessment made by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle, Amritsar, pursuant to a notice under section 34(1)(a). The assessment in question related to the financial year 1948-49 for the assessee, Ram Singh Uppall of Hindustan Embroidery Mills Private Limited, Chheharta (Amritsar). The assessment proceedings were initially completed by the Income-tax Officer, A-ward, Amritsar, and later transferred to the Income-tax Officer, Special Investigation Circle, Amritsar, by the Commissioner of Income-tax under sub-section (7A) of section 5 of the Act. The Income-tax Officer, Special Circle, issued a notice under section 34(1)(a) on 9th March 1956, leading to the reassessment completed on 4th March 1957, determining concealed income at Rs. 1,42,696. The jurisdictional issue arose from a second notice issued by the Income-tax Officer, F-Ward, Amritsar, on 30th March 1956, under section 34(1)(a), challenging the authority of the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle, to make the assessment. The department argued that the second notice by the F-Ward Income-tax Officer was a precautionary measure due to uncertainties regarding the validity of sub-section (7A) of section 5, which were later clarified by a Supreme Court judgment. The contention was that the second notice did not imply a re-transfer of proceedings from the Special Circle to the F-Ward. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner's order highlighted that the Commissioner did not withdraw jurisdiction from the Special Circle, nor did he provide fresh approval to the F-Ward for issuing the notice under section 34. The statutory provisions of section 64 were cited to support the argument that transferred proceedings must be handled by the designated authority. The assessee's counsel argued that the second notice implied a transfer of proceedings, citing a form of notice under section 34 that mentioned obtaining the Commissioner's satisfaction. However, the Tribunal's statement of the case did not include this point. The assessee contended that the Commissioner's permission to the F-Ward Officer implied a withdrawal of jurisdiction from the Special Circle, which was rejected by the court. The court emphasized that the transferred authority, as directed by the Commissioner, was the Special Circle, and the assessment order was validly made in accordance with this direction. In conclusion, the court ruled against the assessee, affirming the validity of the assessment made by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle, Amritsar. The judgment clarified that the statutory duty imposed on the transferred authority to conduct assessments according to the Commissioner's directions validated the assessment in question. The assessee was directed to pay the costs of the reference.
|
