9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (2) TMI 54X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mu and Kashmir State, in the province of Jammu or any other writ or direction as may be deemed necessary under the circumstances of the case. It has been stated in the petition that the petitioner is a partnership firm carrying on the business of exploiting forest produce as a Government lessee in the State of Jammu and Kashmir having its principal place of business at Jammu. It is not disputed that the petitioner-firm is assessed to income-tax under the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer, " B " Ward, Jammu. In the month of December, 1956, it is stated by the petitioner that it entered into a contract with the State of Jammu and Kashmir through the Forest Department of the Government for exploiting the forest known as " Killar Forest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Income-tax Officer was resorting, even if provisionally, to arbitrarily high rates for computing the income and the petitioner, under these compelling circumstances, filed an appeal against the orders for the assessment year 1960-61 to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Jammu. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner on hearing the appeal reduced the aforesaid provisional rate of 20 % to 12%. Being aggrieved against the said order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the petitioner went in further appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal by its order dated September 1, 1966, with certain observations, confirmed the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on August 21, 1965. For the next assessment yea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reinafter called the Act), and revise/modify the assessment in the light of the findings and grant the relief to the petitioner available to him under law. Respondent No. 1 dismissed the said petition by his order dated December 26, 1975, for the assessment years 1958-59 and 1959-60 on the ground of limitation. With regard to the assessment year 1960-61 followed by the order passed on January 31, 1976, on the assessment for the years 1960-61 and 1961-62, which is impugned in the present petition (sic). For the quashing of that order, the petitioner pressed into service the order passed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, under the provisions of section II 9 of the Act issued on January 17, 1974, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut the provisional nature of assessment are also denied. It is contended that respondent No. 2, the Income-tax Officer, being a creature of statute could not travel beyond the limitations provided under the statute and he had no power to make the provisional assessment under section 23(3) of the Act. Regarding the exercise of power under section 264 of the Act, it is contended that the powers were exercised in accordance with law and on the basis of record and the circumstances which were demonstrated before the respondents and the Tribunal. No directions of the Central Board of Direct Taxes have been violated. The petition is thus liable to be dismissed and does not require any interference in the writ jurisdiction. Great stress is laid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the face of the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax on January 31, 1976, are fallacious. I have perused the directions of the the Central Board of Direct Taxes relied on by learned counsel, a portion of which I have reproduced hereinabove and find that the learned Commissioner has not in any manner violated the directions while exercising the powers conferred on him under section 264 of the Act. The order passed by the Income-tax Officer as held by the Commissioner was passed under section 23(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, which pertains to the assessment year 1958-59, passed on August 20, 1962 and the order passed on November 30, 1963, pertains to the year 1959-60, under the similar sub-section of the 1922 Act. The C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e basis of the record, passed the reasoned orders. I, therefore, find that the Commissioner nowhere acted in violation of the orders of the Board issued on January 17, 1974. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner on this count cannot thus be accepted. Adverting to the next contention of attack on the orders on the ground that it ignores the gross profit rate of 10.1% as disclosed by the petitioner in the consolidated accounts, suffice it to say that on that count too, the petitioner has no case for interference in the writ jurisdiction. The petition suffers on this account from two infirmities. Firstly, it is not within the scope of the writ jurisdiction to interfere in the findings arrived at by the Commissioner on the basi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
