Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.36 seconds)Section 52 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
K.P. Varghese vs The Income Tax Officer,Ernakulam, And ... on 4 September, 1981
Reference was also made to the Supreme Court in the case of Varghese v. ITO. , where in considering Section 52, Sub-section (2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, their Lordships laid down that before a particular statutory provision could be invoked, the statutory pre-conditions must have to be fulfilled. In that case, it was held that for the application of Sub-Section (2) of Section 52 of the I.T. Act, two conditions were needed to be fulfilled--one was understatement or concealment by the assessee and, secondly, the opinion of the ITO formed reasonably. In the absence of fulfilment of either of the conditions/the said Sub-Section could not be invoked. In the instant case, the opinion of the ITO is absent as will appear from the letter of reference. Secondly, it has been argued by Dr. Pal that assuming for the sake of argument that reference to the valuer was validly made but in terms of the provisions of Section 55A, adopting, inter alia, Sub-sections (2) to (6) of Section 16A of the W.T. Act, mutatis mutandis, such valuation has become infructuous in view of the fact that in terms of Sub-Section (6) of Section 16A of the W.T. Act, the valuation report can be utilised only for the purpose of completing an assessment in conformity with the said report. Mr. B.L. Pal on behalf on the respondents has taken the stand that if the ITO had waited for the valuation report, the assessment would have become time-barred.
The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... vs Ranchhoddas Karsondas, Bombay on 8 May, 1959
5. Dr. Pal, in support of his above contention, has relied on the decision in the case of CIT v. Ranchhoddas Karsondas , to show that an assessee is entitled to file his return any time before his assessment, provided there is no time-limit. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court while deciding that case observed that even a return filed on the last day could not be ignored on the ground that the Department would be driven to complete the assessment proceeding within a few hours or lose the right to send a notice under Section 34(1). The argument of inconvenience was held to be hot a decisive argument and there were means and methods which could be availed of by the Department to save the bar of limitation from becoming operative. It was further pointed out by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that it was for the courts to administer the laws as they stood and they were seldom required to be astute to defeat the law of limitation. Dr. Pal relied on this decision to counter the submissions on behalf of the respondents that the ITO had no other alternative but to complete the assessment without waiting for the valuation report to avoid the bar of limitation. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is, however, found that sufficient time was still left for the Department to take steps to get the valuation report and to complete the proceedings within the statutory time-limit but failure of the Department to take necessary steps cannot be rewarded with a premium at the cost of the assessee.
The Income Tax Act, 1961
1