9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (7) TMI 26X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 25(2) was without jurisdiction and invalid ? The factual position in a nut-shell is as follows : For the assessment year 1976-77, the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (in short "the Commissioner"), initiated proceedings under section 25(2) of the Act and finally directed the Wealth-tax Officer to take the fair market value of the assessee's property at No. 36, Motia Khan Dump Scheme, Rani Jhansi Road, New Delhi, at Rs. 14,18,000 as against Rs. 7,44,400 for the assessment year 1976-77. The basis for taking action under section 25 of the Act was that the assessment records of the assessee were inspected by the audit party after completion of the regular assessment. An objection was raised that the fair market value of the property on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... interests of the Revenue. The twin conditions stated above are satisfied and, therefore, the Commissioner's order was legal and proper and the Tribunal was not justified in interfering with the same. We find that the Tribunal based its conclusions primarily on the basis of a decision of the Calcutta High Court in Ganga Properties v. ITO [1979] 118 ITR 447. The aforesaid decision was by a learned single judge. A Division Bench of the same High Court took a contrary view in CWT v. Ramnarayan Bhojnagarwala [1992] 194 ITR 489. In that case it was observed that where the assessment is completed without any enquiry whatsoever, the order of assessment is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. While exercising powers to revis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passed by the Assessing Officer. Every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the Assessing Officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. For example, when an Income-tax Officer adopted one of the courses permissible in law and it has resulted in loss of revenue ; or where two views are possible and the Income-tax Officer has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, unless the view taken by the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law. It has been held by this court that where a sum not earned by a person is assessed as income in his hands on his so offering, the order passed by the Assessing Offic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
