9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (9) TMI 25X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... istant Commissioner of Income-tax, as a result of which a tentative understanding was reached that the amount of Rs. 2,02,407 found written on the seized paper contained an element of unaccounted profit of Rs. 1,20,730. Pursuant to the said discussions, the assessee filed revised returns on February 17, 1965, and the Income-tax Officer, accordingly, on February 20, 1965, submitted draft assessment orders for the approval of the Commissioner of Income-tax on the basis of the said revised returns. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has, in its statement of the case, observed that these draft assessment orders were not signed by the Income-tax Officer and the Commissioner of Income-tax did not approve of the said draft assessment orders and dir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee, unsuccessfully, appealed before both the appellate authorities below. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal confirmed the said penalty levied by the Income-tax Officer for the assessment years in question. One of the points raised by the assessee before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was regarding the limitation for drawing up penalty proceedings for the said six years. Accordingly, at the direction of the High Court, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court: " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessment orders drafted by the Income-tax Officer on February 20, 1965, were in law final orders so that the limitation for drawing up penalty procee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inal orders " in the sense that the assessee had made representation against the said orders before the Commissioner. Though the said orders were not communicated to the assessee even if he had treated the said orders as " final " he had to prefer appeals before the appellate authority concerned against the said orders which was not done. It appears to us that the assessee was also treating the said orders as draft orders and, therefore, was filing objections against the same before the Commissioner of Income-tax. In arriving at its finding that the draft orders dated February 20, 1965, were not final orders, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has placed reliance on a decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT v. Mahabir Prasad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion, when an authority is said to have passed an order which become final only when the said authority, makes up its mind. The facts of the present case will disclose that, on February 20, 1965, the Income-tax Officer had drafted assessment orders tentatively for the approval of the Commissioner of Income-tax and he had not finally made up his mind with regard to the said assessments made against the assessee. In view of the foregoing discussions, in our opinion, the question referred above has got to be answered in the negative by holding that the assessment orders drafted by the Income-tax Officer on February 20, 1965, in law were not final orders so that limitation for drawing up penalty proceedings would commence from that date. The a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
