Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.69 seconds)The Income Tax Act, 1961
Section 10 in The Bengal Agricultural Income-Tax Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
Section 11 in The Bengal Agricultural Income-Tax Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of ... vs Sri Keshab Chandra Mandal on 9 May, 1950
Once the money is paid, then the enclosing of the challan is merely a mechanical process. If the money has been paid but for some reason or other, the challan has not been enclosed, that may make the return "incomplete", but the prepayment of the admitted amount is a condition precedent to the furnishing of the return and until the money is so paid, that is to say, paid into a Government Treasury or the Reserve Bank of India, no return can be validly furnished. Where the law lays down a precondition, then that must be observed, in order to hold that the law has been complied with. This position has been amply established by the Supreme Court in a decision under the Bengal Agricultural Income-tax Act, in Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, West Bengal v. Sri Keshab Chandra Mandal . Under that Act, as under the Indian Income-tax Act, a return has to be in a prescribed form, which has been prescribed under Rules which forms part of the Act itself. The form requires that the assessee must append his own signature to the return in order to make it a valid return. What happened in that case was that the assessee, who was an agriculturist, filed a return signed by his son, who purported to sign it Bakalam his father. The High Court held that this was in order, but the Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court on the ground that it was required by law (in the prescribed form) that the return should be signed by the assessee and as it was not signed, there was no valid return. Of course, if there was no valid return, it cannot be said that there was any return at all, for an invalid return cannot be a return in accordance with law.
L. Hazari Mal Kuthiala vs The Income-Tax Officer, Special ... on 27 September, 1961
12. The learned Standing Counsel has referred to another aspect of the matter. He says that the notice under Form VI deals with a case of "no return" as well as incorrect and incomplete returns. Even assuming that this was not a case of "no return" but that of an incomplete return, it does not affect the jurisdiction of the Commercial Tax Officer to deal with the matter under Section 11, even though by either mistake or inadvertence, the notice has gone Under Clause (a) rather than Clause (b) of Form No. VI. For this purpose he has cited a decision of the Supreme Court in L. Hazari Mal, Kuthiala v. Income-tax Officer, Special Circle, Ambala . The facts in that case were as follows :
Pitamber Vajirshet vs Dhondu Navlapa on 4 October, 1887
In other words, it should in that case be taken to be Under Clause (b). It will further be observed that this objection of the assessee is rather belated. This objection was not taken before the Commercial Tax Officer in the first instance. On the other hand, the books and documents were produced and the assessee got every opportunity of defending himself and putting forward his objections and it is after hearing him fully that the assessment was made. There is, therefore, no merit in the objection which is now being taken. For these reasons we are of the opinion that the question should be answered as follows:-
The Bengal Agricultural Income-Tax Act, 1944
1