9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2005 (10) TMI 62 - HC - Income TaxOrder of CIT-tax u/s 263 revision - Whether, Tribunal is right in relying upon sub-section (4) of section 3 as it stood prior to the amendment with effect from April 1, 1989 thereby cancelling the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263? - As can be seen from sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Act, the definition of previous year shows that, in normal circumstances, a previous year is comprised a period of 12 months and not more - Tribunal was justified in holding that, Commissioner had committed an error in exercising jurisdiction under section 263 - Tribunal was, therefore, right in holding that, in the absence of any error and any prejudice to the interests of the Revenue having been shown by the Commissioner of Income-tax, he could not have assumed jurisdiction under section 263. In fact, the Commissioner of Income-tax has failed to point out any provision by which he could in exercise of powers under section 263 of the Act change the previous year.
Issues:
1. Interpretation of section 3(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263 of the Act. 3. Assessment of income for the assessment year 1985-86. 4. Double taxation of the same income for different assessment years. Interpretation of section 3(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961: The case involved a question regarding the correct interpretation of section 3(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Section 3(4) restricts an assessee from varying the meaning of the "previous year" once an option has been exercised or an assessment has been made, except with the consent of the Assessing Officer. In this case, the assessee had consistently adopted a specific previous year, and the Commissioner of Income-tax had to establish a violation of this provision to justify his actions under section 263 of the Act. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263 of the Act: The Commissioner of Income-tax initiated action under section 263 for the assessment year 1985-86, contending that the income for the period ending December 31, 1984, should have been assessed for that year instead of the subsequent year. However, the High Court noted that the Commissioner failed to demonstrate any error by the Assessing Officer or how such error was prejudicial to the Revenue's interests. The Court emphasized that the Commissioner could not assume jurisdiction under section 263 without satisfying these conditions. Assessment of income for the assessment year 1985-86: The Tribunal held that the Commissioner's order under section 263 was not legally tenable, relying on the provisions of section 3, particularly subsection (4), as it stood before the 1989 amendment. The Court found that the assessee had correctly followed the prescribed previous year, and the Commissioner had not shown any error or prejudice to the Revenue, justifying the exercise of jurisdiction under section 263. Consequently, the Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to cancel the Commissioner's order. Double taxation of the same income for different assessment years: An important aspect raised by the assessee was the issue of double taxation of the same income for different assessment years. The Court observed that the same income had already been assessed for the subsequent year, and without disturbing that assessment, taxing the income again for the earlier year was unjustified. The Tribunal did not dispute this argument, and the Court agreed that the Commissioner's actions were erroneous, leading to the cancellation of the order under section 263. In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, ruling in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue. The Court found that the Commissioner had erred in exercising jurisdiction under section 263 without demonstrating any error or prejudice to the Revenue's interests. The interpretation of section 3(4) played a crucial role in determining the validity of the Commissioner's actions, ultimately leading to the cancellation of the order and disposal of the reference in favor of the assessee.
|
