Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.66 seconds)
By Advs.Sri.Harisankar vs By Advs.Sri.Harisankar V. Menon on 16 June, 2014 cites

Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bhopal vs M/S. Shelly Products And Another on 8 May, 2003

11. It is beyond dispute that the powers of the assessing officers under the Act are quasi-judicial in nature and they are duty bound, therefore, to act fairly in the discharge of their functions. They are also invested with the authority to do justice to the assessees. True, in a given case where the self assessment made by an assessee is proposed to be revised on the ground that the deduction made him in the return under a particular head is inadmissible, the assessing officer, in the absence of a revised return, would proceed on the basis of the facts disclosed by the assessee in the return. But, in a case where it is apparent on the face of the record that the assessee has included in his return, an income which is exempted from payment of income tax, on account of ignorance or by mistake, according to me, the assessing officer is bound to take into account the said fact in a WP.(C).No.26004/2017 -10- proceedings under Section 143 of the Act. In other words, if the capital gains on a transaction is exempted from payment of tax, the assessing officer has a duty to refrain from levying tax on the said capital gains and the assessing officer cannot, in such cases, refuse to grant relief under Section 143 of the Act to the assessee on the technical plea that the assessee has not filed a revised return. It is so since the paramount duty of the assessing officer is to complete the assessments in accordance with law. It is all the more so in the light of the mandate under Article 265 of the Constitution that no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law. I am fortified in the aforesaid view by the observations made by the Apex Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhopal v. Shelly Products and another [(2003) 5 SCC 461]. Paragraph 36 of the judgment of the Apex Court in the said case reads thus:
Supreme Court of India Cites 38 - Cited by 190 - B P Singh - Full Document
1