| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1953 SLG 288 1953 SLD 288 (1953) 24 ITR 70 |
Calcutta High Court
CHAKRAVARTTI, C.J.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
CHAKRAVARTTI, C.J.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Raja Benoy KuMar court Sahas Roy
v.
Commissioner of Income Tax
Law:
Section:
Section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 - [Corresponding to Section 153 read with section 251 of the Income-tax Act, 1961] - Reassessment - Times limit of Completion of CASE REVIEW Refusal of the Appellate Tribunal to follow the decision in Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax v. Raja Jagdish Chandra Deo Dhabal Deb [1949] 17 I.T.R. 426/53 C.W.N. 596; Chajju Ram v.Naki [1922] 49 I.A. 144 and Raja Mustafa Ali Khan v. CIT [1948] 16 I.T.R. 330; 75 I.A. - followed and relied upon. JUDGMENT Chakravartti, CJ.-This reference relates to a re-assessment under Section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act and comprises two points taken by the assessee, one of which seeks to make out that the entire re-assessment proceedings were without jurisdiction and the other of which seeks to make out that, in any event, the income brought to tax under the re-assessment was not taxable. The contention in the first case is that the Income-tax Officer had no "definite information" on which he could legally proceed under Section 34. In the second case it is that the income concerned is agricultural income. Before dealing with the reference on the merits, it is necessary to dispose of a preliminary point. Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act provides that the Commissioner or the assessee may, by an application made within a certain time, require the Appellate Tribunal to refer to the High Court any question of law arising out of its order and further provides that "the Appellate Tribunal shall, within ninety days of the receipt of such application, draw up a statement of the case and refer it to the High Court". In the present case the reference was not made within ninety days from the receipt of the application. As this was happening in too many cases, it appeared to this Court that the statutory direction contained in Section 66(1) of the Act was being disregarded by the Tribunal and, accordingly, it was directed by an administrative order that references made after the expiry of the period prescribed by the Act should be accepted only provisionally, subject to all just exceptions that might be taken at the hearing on the ground of limitation. The order was directed to be…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492