Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.33 seconds)Section 264 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 33B in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 147 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Rampyari Devi Saraogi vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... on 1 May, 1967
In Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. Commissioner of Income-tax, . the Supreme Court had occasion to consider a case where the Income-tax Officer had made the assessment in undue haste without any evidence or enquiry. It was held that Section 33B could be applied to such a case. It would be seen that the prejudice to the revenue was inferred in that case not from any finding that there was a loss of revenue, but from the mere fact that the procedure employed was defective.
Section 34 in Income Tax Rules, 1962 [Entire Act]
Tara Devi Aggarwal vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... on 27 November, 1972
15. It may be Seen that in the case before the Supreme Court the real complaint of the Commissioner was that the assessee had not earned the particular income and had disclosed it for assessment only for the purpose of assisting someone else. Making an assessment with reference to an income, which had not been earned by the assessee, would not have been prejudicial to the interests of the revenue if prejudice is to be spelt out only in a case where some income assessable to tax had not been assessed. The result of the above decision is that even where an assessment is made with reference to an income which, but for the return voluntarily filed by the assessee, would not be assessable in his or her hands it would be prejudicial. Thus, the expression "erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue" requires to be widely considered. In the present case even that wide construction is unnecessary because there is a demonstrable prejudice to the revenue in so far as the amount assessable to tax under Section 41(2) had not been assessed. As we shall presently show, this prejudice is not to be ascertained by taking the assessment as a whole. The Tribunal's conclusion was, therefore, right.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, N.W.F. And ... vs The Tribune Trust on 14 October, 1947
17. The real point is whether in the proceedings taken by the Commissioner to set right the errors in so far as they were prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, the assessee could ask for adjustment of the errors in so far as they were prejudicial to him. Section 264 provides for revision by the Commissioner of Income-tax of orders of subordinate authorities, either on his own motion or on an application made by the assessee. In such a case he could pass such order as he thought fit provided such an order was not one prejudicial to the assessee. Thus, apart from the provision for an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner available under Section 246 and the further appeal to the Tribunal from the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner under Section 253 of the Act, there is an alternative remedy available to the assessee to go before the Commissioner under Section 264. The Commissioner could then examine the grievance of the assessee and adjudicate on it in such a manner as his order did not involve any prejudice to the assessee. The order can be said to be prejudical to the assessee only when the assessee as a result of the said order is in a different and worse position than that in which he was placed before the order of the Commissioner was passed under Section 264 of the Act, See Commissioner of Income-tax v. Tribune Trust, [1948] 16 ITR 214 (PC) Thus, if the assessee had any grievance with reference to the non-adjustment of the loss in other items, he had to take proceedings under the other provisions mentioned above. Having failed to take any such step, the assessee cannot in defence to the proceedings under Section 263 seek to show that there was no prejudice to the interests of the revenue, because there was some other error which was in favour of the revenue.