Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.29 seconds)Section 23 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Section 10 in Income Tax Rules, 1962 [Entire Act]
Section 21 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 23 in Income Tax Rules, 1962 [Entire Act]
Dhakeswar1 Cotton Mills Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax,West Bengal on 29 October, 1954
The Sales Tax Officer said: "I reject the dealer's accounts
and estimate a gross turnover of Rs. 4,00,000. 1 allow a
deduction at 2% on the turnover and assess him on Rs.
3,92,000 to pay sales tax of Rs. 6,125." For the quarter
ending on September 30, 1946, the Sales Tax Officer said: "I
reject his irregular account and estimate a gross turnover
of Rs. 3,00,000 for the quarter and assess him on Rs.
2,94,000 to pay tax of Rs. 4,593-12-0." These and similar
orders do not show that the assessment was made with
reference to any evidence or material; on the contrary, they
show that having rejected the books of account, the
assessing authorities indulged in -pure guess and made an
assessment without reference-to any evidence or any material
at all. This the assessing authorities were not entitled to
do under cl. (b) of sub.s. (2) of s. 10 of the Act.
Secondly, learned counsel for the respondent has referred us
to several decisions on which the High Court relied and has
argued that on the basis of those decisions, it must be held
that the answer given by the High Court to the question
referred to it was a correct answer. We propose to examine
briefly some of those decisions, though, as we have stated
earlier, the question is really answered by the observations
made by this Court in Dhakeswari Cotton Mills' case (1).
Income Tax Rules, 1962
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, C. P. & U. P. vs Badridas Ramrai Shop, Akola. on 21 August, 1939
The first decision is the Privy Council decision in Income-
tax Commissioner v. Badridas Ramrai Shop, Akola (2). Lord
Russell of Killowen in delivering the judgment of their
Lordships made the following observations as respects a "
Gunda Subbayya vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras. on 27 October, 1933
The next decision is Gunda Subbayya v. Commissioner of
Income-tax, Madras (1). This decision also does not help
the respondent. It was held in that decision that though
there is nothing in the Indian Income-tax Act which imposes
a duty on an Incometax Officer, who makes an assessment
under s. 23 (3), to disclose to the assessee the material on
which he proposes to act, natural justice requires that he
should draw the assessee's attention to it and give him an
opportunity to show that the officer's information is wrong
and he should also indicate in his order the material on
which he has made his estimate.