1969 (1) TMI 22 - HC - Income Tax

Best Judgment Assessment on ground of non-compliance with the various notices - ITO not proved that there has been any non-compliance with any of the notices - therefore, order of assessment in the present case must be struck down

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer under Section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Compliance with notices under Sections 143(2) and 131 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
3. Validity of the assessment order dated 22nd March 1965.

Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer under Section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961:

The petitioner challenged the assessment order dated 22nd March 1965, issued under Section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The primary contention was that the conditions precedent for the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 144 were not met. According to Section 144, an Income-tax Officer can make a best judgment assessment if the assessee fails to make a return required by a notice under Section 139(2), fails to comply with a notice under Section 142(1), or fails to comply with a notice under Section 143(2).

The petitioner argued that there was no failure to comply with any of these notices. The Income-tax Officer's jurisdiction under Section 144 was questioned as it was based on non-compliance with a notice under Section 131, which is not a valid ground for invoking Section 144.

2. Compliance with notices under Sections 143(2) and 131 of the Income-tax Act, 1961:

The petitioner had submitted a return for the assessment year 1960-61 and complied with a notice under Section 143(2) by producing certain books of account. The assessment order mentioned that a notice under Section 131 was issued for the personal attendance of the assessee and the production of books of account, but the summonses came back unserved. The Income-tax Officer proceeded to complete the assessment under Section 144 due to this non-compliance.

The petitioner contended that since there was compliance with the notice under Section 143(2) and no notice under Section 142(1) was issued, the conditions for invoking Section 144 were not met. The letter dated 12th November 1964, which the respondents claimed was a notice under Section 143(2), was argued to be insufficient to assume jurisdiction under Section 144.

3. Validity of the assessment order dated 22nd March 1965:

The court found that the letter dated 12th November 1964 could not be construed as a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act. The Income-tax Officer did not record any finding of non-compliance with the notices mentioned in Section 144. The only finding was non-compliance with a notice under Section 131, which is not a valid ground for invoking Section 144.

The court held that the conditions precedent for the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 144 were not present. The assessment order was thus struck down as being without jurisdiction. The court emphasized that a tribunal of limited jurisdiction cannot assume jurisdiction on a wrong finding of a collateral fact. The High Court has the authority to set aside such erroneous findings and the assumption of jurisdiction based on them.

Conclusion:

The court quashed the assessment order dated 22nd March 1965, and the notice of demand dated 23rd March 1965. The respondents were directed to forbear from giving effect to the said order and notice. However, the respondents were not precluded from proceeding according to law. There was no order as to costs.

← Previous Next →