Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.65 seconds)
Documents citing Santalal Mehendi Ratta (Huf) vs Commissioner Of Taxes And Ors. on 9 October, 2001

B And A Plantation And Industries Ltd. ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax And Ors. on 18 December, 2006

In Santalal Mehendi Ratta (HUF) v. Commissioner of Taxes [2006] 143 STC 511 (Gauhati) ; [2002] 1 GLR 197, a turnover of the assessee was reopened due to alleged concealment of facts by the assessee. Exercise of revisional jurisdiction in such a case was interfered with by the court on the ground that a turnover, which escaped assessment due to concealment, can be reopened by taking resort to the power to reopen the assessment and when such a power of reopening the assessment existed, it is not permissible to exercise revisional jurisdiction, for revisional jurisdiction cannot be exercised as an alternative to, or as a substitute of, the power to reopen assessment. The relevant observations made by this High Court, in Santalal Mehendi Ratta (HUF) [2006] 143 STC 511 (Gauhati), read as under (page 517):
Gauhati High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 51 - I Ansari - Full Document

Jain Steel And Wooden Industries vs State Of Assam And Ors. on 4 October, 2007

18. Although elaborate arguments have been advanced by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the rival parties, the key question here is whether exercise of powers by the Revisional Authority was justified in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. If one examines the decision cited on behalf of the petitioner reported in (2002) 1 GLR 197 : 2002 (2) GLT 262 (Santalal Mehendi Ratta (HUF) v. Commissioner of Taxes and Ors.). it can be seen that this Court has held that revisional power is exercisable only with regard to jurisdictional error and not for correcting an error which is considered to be a wrong assessment order in the eye of the Revisional Authority.
Gauhati High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - H Roy - Full Document

Assam Marble Industries vs State Of Assam And Ors. on 20 February, 2007

Drawing sustenance inter alia from the ratio of the decisions in Rajendra Singh (supra) and State of Kerala v. K.M. Cheria Abdulla and Co. (1965) 16 STC 875, this Court in Santalal Mehendi Ratta (HUF) (supra), held that an erroneous order cannot be equated with a wrong order as understood in common parlance and that an order of assessment passed within the limits of the jurisdiction of the Assessing Authority even if considered to be wrong by the Revisional Authority would not attract the invocation of suo moto revisional powers. It expressed itself further in the following terms.
Gauhati High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - A Roy - Full Document

Eastern Enterprises And Anr. vs State Of Assam And Ors. on 2 December, 2004

24. Dr. Saraf relying upon the judgment of this Court in Santalal Mehendi Ratta (HUF) v. Commissioner of Taxes reported in* (2002) 2 GLT 262 argued that the powers of suo motu revision under Section 36 have to be confined to jurisdictional errors only. According to Dr. Saraf, in the case at hand, the powers of rectification under Section 37 of the Act could be invoked within a period of three years. After expiry of the period of three years, the authority cannot be allowed to invoke the provisions of suo motu revision under Sub-section (1) of Section 36 to correct the error, if any, crept-in in the assessment order. The contention of Dr. Saraf does not appear to be relevant to the scheme of the Act. The powers in Sections 18, 36 and 37 are distinct and different from one another. The provisions of Section 18 can be invoked by the assessing officer for the purpose of levying tax on the escaped assessment and the provisions of Section 37 for the purpose of rectification of arithmetical mistake and factual error. The case at hand is obviously not for correction of arithmetical mistake or factual error. The powers under Section 37 for rectification of assessment orders were also not invoked by the assessing officer. It is in this context, the Joint Commissioner issued the notice under Sub-section (1) of Section 36 after having found that the assessing officer acted erroneously relying upon an erroneous order of the Deputy Commissioner of Taxes (Appeals) which has resulted into loss of revenue. The diligence and promptitude expected from the assessing officer is obviously lacking in the instant case. Therefore, the action of the Joint Commissioner cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. The decision in Santalal Mehendi Ratta (HUF) (2002) 2 GLT 262 cannot salvage the situation for the assessee-firm.
Gauhati High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - D Biswas - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs B & A Plantation Industries Ltd on 13 February, 2012

Reliance was placed on State of Kerala vs. KM Cheria Abdulla [(1965) 16 STC 875], Santlal Mehndi Ratta (HUF) vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [ (2002) 1 GLR 197], decision of this Court in WP(C) 1416/2001 (Bongaigaon Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd. vs. Union of India), Sirpur Paper Mills vs. Commissioner of Wealth Tax [(1970) 77 ITR 6] and Jeevan Lat (1929) Ltd vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (Cal) [1977) 108 ITR 407.
Gauhati High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 4 - A K Goel - Full Document
1   2 Next