Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.10 seconds)Section 23 in Income Tax Rules, 1962 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Section 35 in Income Tax Rules, 1962 [Entire Act]
Section 66 in Income Tax Rules, 1962 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in Income Tax Rules, 1962 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, New Delhi vs Rao Thakur Narayan Singh on 30 October, 1964
The learned advocate further referred to the case of Commr.
of Income-tax v. Rao Thakur Nargvan Singh (2 ) in support of
his submission that past assessments against the assessee
were final and cannot be relied upon for the purpose of
exercising jurisdiction under s. 33B. A reference to the
case cited by him however would show that no steps had been
taken under s. 35 to rectify the mistake in the order of the
Appellate Tribunal nor was any reference to the High Court
sought against that order, but nonetheless, the Income-tax
Officer initiated fresh assessment proceedings under s. 34
with respect to interest income and made a fresh assessment
to include that income. In these circumstances it was held
that where the order of the Appellate Tribuhal became final
the income-tax Officer could not initiate re-assessment
proceedings
(1). 87 I.T.R. 84.
Rampyari Devi Saraogi vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... on 1 May, 1967
The learned advocate for the assessee contends that under s.
33B the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to cancel the
assessment made by the Income-tax Officer inasmuch as it
cannot said that where an assessee has been assessed to tax
it was prejudicial to the interests of revenue on the ground
that no assessment could 'have been made in respect of the
income of which she made a voluntary return. This
contention in our view is unwarranted by the language of s.
3 3B. The words of the section enable the Commissioner to
call for and examine the. record of any proceeding under the
Act and to pass such orders as he deems necessary as the
circumstances of the case justify when he considers the
order passed was erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to
the interest of the revenue. It is not, as submitted by the
learned advocate prejudicial to the interests of the revenue
only if it is found the
1041
the assessment for the year was disclosed on the basis that
an income had been earned which is assessable. Even where
an income has not been earned and is not assessable, merely
because the assessee wants it to 'be assessed in his or her
hands in order to enable someone else who would have been
assessed to a larger amount, an assessment so made can
certainly be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of
the revenue. If so-and we think it is so-the Commissioner
under s. 33B has ample jurisdiction to cancel the assessment
and may initiate proceeding s for assessment under the
provisions of the Act against some other assessee who
according to the income-tax authorities is liable for the
income thereof. Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. Commissioner of
Income-tax(1) lends support to this view. In that case this
Court in similar circumstances held that the Commissioner
had jurisdiction under s. 33B of the Act. It appears the
Commissioner of Incometax West Bengal had on enquiries made
by the department stated in the notice to the assessee that
he neither resided nor carried on any business declared in
the returns and had found that the Income,tax Officer was
not justified in accepting the initial capital, the gift
received and sale of jewellery and the income from business
without any enquiry or evidence whatsoever. It appeared in
that case, as in this case, the assessee had given a
fictitious address in order to invest the jurisdiction on a
particular Income-tax Officer to make the assessment. While
agreeing with the High Court that all this material was
supporting material and did not constitute the basic grounds
on which the order under s. 33B were passed by the Com-
missioner, this Court held that there was ample material to
show that the Income-tax Officer made the assessment in
undue hurry; that the assessee was a new assessee and filed
voluntary returns in respect of a number of years i.e. from
assessment years 1952-53 to 1960-61. The other
circumstances also were similar in nature to those in this
case.
1