9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (11) TMI 88X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? " The facts giving rise to this reference are that the assessee is a partnership firm which was being assessed as a registered-firm under the Income-tax Act. During the assessment year 1978-79, it filed a declaration under section 184(7) of the Income-tax Act in Form No. 12 on June 29, 1978, and continuation of registration was granted to the assessee-firm by the Income-tax Officer by his order dated August 25, 1981. Subsequently, the Commissioner of Income-tax made certain enquiries and vide his order dated August 19, 1983, under section 263 of the Act set aside the order of the Income-tax Officer and directed the Income-tax Officer to make a fresh determination of the status of the assessee. The as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to any proceeding under this Act available at the time of examination by the Commissioner. Therefore, the power of the Commissioner has been extended and it has been made retrospective also that any record under the Act can be called for by the Commissioner for satisfying himself whether the order is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue or not. Therefore, we do not need to dilate on this aspect. Suffice it to say, the Commissioner had the jurisdiction to call for any record under the Act to examine whether it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue or not. In the present case, after perusing the record, the Commissioner set aside the order passed by the Income-tax Officer in favour of the assessee. The Tribunal after examinat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee for supporting the order of assessment passed by the Income-tax Officer. In the present case, as found from the record by the Tribunal, a copy of the report of the expert was not given to the assessee and the Tribunal found that it is a serious breach of principles of natural justice. The Tribunal in its order has recorded that : " In the present case before us, the report of the handwriting expert was obtained after the assessment had already been completed. The learned Departmental Representative, however, contended that on a mere look at Form No. 12, the Commissioner would have had an impression that the signatures of one of the partners were forged and, therefore, he could initiate action under section 263 and procure the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n law he does not have. On this view of the matter also, the order under appeal has to fail. " It was further observed by the Tribunal that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of hearing. It was observed : " We have noticed that the order was passed by the Income-tax Officer on August 25, 1981, and, therefore, limitation would have expired for action under section 263 or about the 25th August, 1983. The Commissioner issued a notice to the assessee as late as August 1, 1983, and had not sent the copy of the handwriting expert's report to the assessee along with the notice nor did he mention the name of the partner whose signatures were suspected to be forged. The assessee raised a specific point about these matters in reply da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
