9911796707
TMI Blog1972 (4) TMI 35X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the return which is meant for showing items of income and gain in respect of which the assessee claims exemption. " Addition to capital reserve ...... Rs. 1,00,000. (i) It is a receipt of casual nature not arising from any business, profession, vocation or occupation ; and (ii) It is also not taxable as capital gain on account of aggregate capital loss of Rs. 21,09,001 brought forward under section 24(2B) from 1954-55 and 1956-57. " The Income-tax Officer passed an assessment order on March 7, 1964, but did not deal with the claim of the assessee contained in Part D of the return. Later on he issued a notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as in his opinion the sum of Rs. 1,00,000 mentioned by the assessee in Part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the assessment order passed by the Income-tax Officer was prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, and on the material on the record the assessment order could not be said to be prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Under section 33B of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act and if he considers that any order passed therein by the Income-tax Officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, he may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such enquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify, including an order e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... justified in passing the impugned order." It is now well settled that a question which, even though not raised by the assessee, is dealt with by the Tribunal is a question which arises out of the appellate order of the Tribunal : See Commissioner of Income-tax v. Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. [1961] 42 ITR 589 (SC). Moreover, we find that the argument advanced before us does not raise a new question. It is merely one of the aspects of the question mooted before the Tribunal. The question which has been referred to us is not restricted to the argument raised before the Tribunal, but is widely worded and relates to the validity of the action under section 33B on the facts and circumstances of the case. We can thus examine this question ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der was prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. It is not each and every order passed by the Income-tax Officer which can be revised under section 33B. Section 33B contemplates a notice to the assessee. In response to the notice the assessee may show to the Commissioner that the order sought to be revised is not prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. In that event, the Commissioner would have no jurisdiction to take any further action. He would be competent to take action only if he rejects the plea of the assessee. It thus becomes necessary for the Commissioner to examine the merits of the objection, raised by the assessee. He cannot delegate that power to the Income-tax Officer by setting aside the assessment order and direct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
