Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (0.24 seconds)Section 172 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 139 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Section 44B in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 148 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 174 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 176 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 146 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
M.N. Sidhwa, Agent To East And West ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... on 24 August, 1962
6. The reliance of learned counsel on the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of M. N. Sidhwa, Agent to East and West Steamship Co. v, CIT [1963] 50 ITR 337 is not well-placed. In that case, the limited question before the High Court was whether the assessments made by the Income-tax Officer were under Section 44B(2) of the Act or under the provisions of the latter part of Section 44A of the Act. In that case, it has been held that the assessment orders were orders validly made under Section 44B(2) and the application for refund was time barred under the provisions of Section 44C of the Act. Their Lordships have not gone into the question whether the Income-tax Officer has got the power to reopen the assessment under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act. It is, therefore, not possible to draw any inference from the said decision. We are, therefore, of the view that the power of the Income-tax Officer to initiate proceedings under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act is not barred even where assessment has been completed under Section 172(4) of the Income-tax Act if there is evidence to show that there is escapement of income under the Income-tax Act. We, accordingly, uphold the validity of the order of the Income-tax Officer under Section 147 reopening the assessment and vacate that of the Commissioner (Appeals).