Patna High Court
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Smt. Manju Didhoria on 5 April, 1988
Equivalent citations: [1988]173ITR459(PATNA)
JUDGMENT Uday Sinha, J.
1. In these references, we are concerned with the assessment year 1971-72.
2. The assessee is a lady and was assessed by the Income-tax Officer, Motihari, Bettiah, in terms of a scheme brought out by the Central Board of Direct Taxes in exercise of powers under Section 119 of the Income-tax Act. The assessment of the Income-tax Officer was set aside by the Commissioner of Income-tax in exercise of powers under Section 263(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
3. On appeal filed by the assessee, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal set aside the order of the Commissioner. The Revenue, being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, has referred the following questions for our opinion :
" 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has rightly held that the assessment orders, having been passed by the Income-tax Officer after necessary enquiries in pursuance of the scheme ' to help the new taxpayers in the small income groups ' launched by the Government, were not erroneous so as to enable the Commissioner of Income-tax to assume jurisdiction under Section 263(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?
2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has rightly held that the Commissioner of Income-tax did not follow the principles of natural justice before passing the impugned order and so his order is not valid ?
3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has rightly held that the impugned order of the Commissioner of Income-tax is based upon mere surmises and conjectures and is, therefore, not valid ?
4. Whether, in view of the decision of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna, in the case of Smt. Rambha Devi v. ITO (ITA Nos. 1713 to 1715 of 1974-75), the Tribunal has rightly held that the Commissioner of Income-tax, acting under Section 263(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, could not legally set aside an order of assessment made under Section 143(1) in pursuance of the scheme ' to help the new taxpayers in the small income groups ' evolved by the Government ?
5. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has rightly cancelled the consolidated order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 263(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73 ? "
4. Identical questions were referred to this court in hundreds of references. About sixty references have already been disposed of in terms of two decisions of this court in CIT v. Pushpa Devi [1987] 164 ITR 639 and CIT v. Rambha Devi [1987] 164 ITR 658. The questions were answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. After fifty to sixty cases have been disposed of, Mr. K. N. Jain and Mr. N. P. Agrawal once again agitated the very same questions answered by this court in the cases of Pushpa Devi [1987] 164 ITR 639 and Rambha Devi [1987] 164 ITR 658. The submissions of Mr. Jain, in regard to the questions referred to this court, have been answered today--all against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.
5. My concluded views on the questions referred to us are that ladies and minors were beyond the periphery of the scheme propounded by the Government. Mr. N. P. Agrawal, in his submission, in these references placed reliance upon CIT v. Kashi Nath & Co. [1988] 170 ITR 28 (All), where the Tribunal had set aside the order of the Commissioner. The High Court and the Supreme Court (sic) upheld the order of the Tribunal. The order of the Tribunal setting aside the order of the Commissioner was upheld for the reason that the Commissioner had not found any infirmity in the assessment. The Commissioner had made a bald statement " after considering the liability of the assessee, I am satisfied that the Income-tax Officer had framed the assessment without examining the details of the deposits appearing in various names ". This was all the consideration given by the Commissioner to the matter. Such an order of the Commissioner will certainly not stand the test of scrutiny by a Tribunal or by a court. The Supreme Court (sic) observed that the Commissioner only complained of the order of the Income-tax Officer for not examining the details of the deposits appearing in various names. The Supreme Court (sic) observed that what were those details which were required to be examined had not been set out by the Commissioner. In the instant case, however, the Commissioner has spelt out clearly in what manner the assessment was to be made. The Commissioner has recorded appropriate reasons for not accepting the assessment. In my view, the Supreme Court (sic) case of CIT v. Kashi Nath & Co. [1988] 170 ITR 28 is distinguishable. The facts and circumstances of the case CIT v. Kashi Nath & Co. [1988] 170 ITR 28, cannot be of any help to the assessee. Other submissions advanced on behalf of the assessee have already been noticed and disposed of by me today in Taxation Cases Nos. 114 and 115 of 1979 (CIT v. Smt. Pushpa Devi [1988] 173 ITR 445).
6. For all the reasons recorded in that judgment as well as in the earlier case of CIT v. Pushpa Devi [1987] 164 ITR 639, all the questions referred to us must be answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The references are thus answered with consolidated costs of Rs. 250 payable by the assessee to the Revenue.
7. Let a copy of this judgment be transmitted to the Assistant Registrar, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna, in terms of Section 260 of the Income-tax Act.
Krishna Ballabh Sinha, J.
8. I agree.