Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.49 seconds)The Income Tax Act, 1961
Section 230A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 132 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Baradakanta Mishra vs The Registrar Of Orissa High Court & Anr on 19 November, 1973
28. Sri Ranganathachari relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Baradakanta Mishras case (supra), for the proposition that if the order of the initial authority is void, an order of the appellate authority cannot make it valid. IT is not the case of the assessee that the entire assessment was void ab initio and the assessee was only objecting to that part which dealt with the addition of Rs. 85,150 which was made on a protective basis. This protective addition was rightly deleted by the CIT (Appeals) and the same is not an inseparable part of the assessment order and, therefore, it cannot be contended that the entire assessment was void ab initio. As for the main question whether the CIT (Appeals) was justified in setting aside the entire order, we hold in the light of the discussions in the preceding paragraphs, that this is not a fit case where the CIT (Appeals) should have set aside the entire assessment directing assessment de novo. The assessment as framed by the ITO sans the addition on protective basis is upheld.
Section 250 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 251 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 69A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
G. Topi Saheb vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 19 January, 1987
11. Sri Ranganathachari vehemently argued that having considered in depth all the materials and the statements and other evidence on record, and having unequivocally held that the apparent consideration and that there was no justification for making any addition under section 69B, the Income-tax Officer erred in making a protective addition in anticipation of any possible adverse decision by the appellate authorities. This sort of protective addition is unknown to law, and in this connection he referred to the decision of the Honorable Andhra Pradesh High Court in G. Topi Saheb v. CIT [1988] 170 ITR 181. This sort of protective addition is void a in it to and the assessee was agitating this matter before the CIT (Appeals). The CIT (Appeals) himself has held that the protective addition is untenable in law. Having so held, he should have deleted the additions instead of trying to validate the proceedings by setting aside the assessment with a direction to do it de novo. Anything which is void a initio is a nullity from the very inception and it cannot be cured by the exercise of appellate jurisdiction. Accounts which are void ab inito cannot be cured or rectified by subsequent proceedings. This is the basic tenet of law which the CIT (Appeals) has ignored.
1