Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.59 seconds)Section 68 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 69D in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 148 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income Tax & Ors vs Chhabil Dass Agarwal on 8 August, 2013
8. Further, it is settled law that the Act provides a complete machinery
for assessment/re-assessment of tax and the assessee is not permitted to
abandon that machinery to invoke jurisdiction of the High Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution [See : Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors.
vs. Chhabil Dass Agarwal, (2014) 1 SCC 603].
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 19 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Cit, Ernakulam vs P.K. Noorjahan (Smt) on 15 January, 1997
"T. The Petitioner further submits that the invocation of section
115BBE in the present case is grossly unfair. The Petitioner seeks the
indulgence of our Hon'ble Court in determining the Constitutional vires
of section 115BBE of the Act in as much as the same is violative of
Article 14, Article 19 as also the fundamental Economic Justice
guaranteed in the Constitution. In the humble submission of the
Petitioner the section is prone to abuse based on a subjective exercise
of discretion whereby it will completely depend on the subjective
opinion and subjective satisfaction of the Assessing Officer as to
whether in a particular case sections 68 to 69D should be invoked or
not. Admittedly, the very sections 68 to 69D are discretionary in nature
and not mandatory [Ref. CIT v/s P.K. Noorjahan - (1999) 237 ITR 670
(SC)] and because of that they are prone to the vice of perversity in
exercise thereof. This may lead to a situation where similarly placed
assessees may be subjected to differential treatment under the Act
based on the discretion of the Assessing officer. The very section
115BBE is prone to mischief. It can be manifested by way of a simple
illustration. Suppose two different assesses in the very same business
earning the very same nature of income are assessed before the same
Assessing Officer wherein income from business earned in cash is
disclosed by both the Assessees. The said income is taxable u/s 28 of
the Act. It needs to be mentioned that even incomes to which sections
68 to 69D apply have to be classified under one of the specific heads as
per section 14. Now, if the Assessing Officer chooses to apply section
68 to business income earned in cash in the case of one assessee and
chooses not to do so in the case of another assessee, it will lead to
absolutely unfair levy of tax because the Assessee in whose case the
said section 68 is applied would end up being charged with more than
double the tax liability [since from AY 2017-18 tax u/s 115BBE is 60%
plus 25% surcharge and further penalty and interest]. In an even worse
situation like the present one, the Assessing Officer could simply invoke
section 68 simply to safeguard his invalid action and consequently
subject the Assessee to the rigours of section 115BBE simply because
the exercise of discretion was inappropriate. It is with utmost respect
submitted that the Act, does not provide a safeguard against a biased
mind. It is for this reason, the Petitioner seeks indulgence of this
Hon'ble Court in redressing the grievance of the injustice caused by
section 115BBE of the Act, just as has happened in the present case.