Case Details

Citation(s)
1972 SLD 3021 = 1972 PTD 133
Punjab and Haryana High Court
Income-tax Reference No. 53 of 1964, decided on 27th March 1968.
Presented By: Mehar Singh, C. J. and Shamsher Bahadur, J
Pannalal Binjraj v. Union of India (1957) 31 I T R 565 ref. Bal Raj Kohli with Ram Rang for the Assessee. D. N. Awasthy with B. S. Gupta for the Commissioner.

S. RAM SINGH UPPAL

VERSUS

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, PUNJAB

Law: Income Tax Act, 1922

Section: 5(7-A), 34(1)(a), 64(5).

Income-tax---Transfer of proceedings -Original Assessment completed-Case transferred-New officer issuing re-assessment notice and completing assessment-Officer having territorial jurisdiction also issuing re-assessment notice without any specific order of transfer-Whether re-assessment by transferred officer valid-Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, Ss. 5(7-A), 34(1)(a) & 64(5). The original assessment on the assessee for 1948.49 was completed by the Income-tax Officer, "A" Ward. Subsequently, the assessment proceedings were transferred to the Income-tax Officer, Special Investigation Circle, by the Commissioner acting under section 5(7-A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. This officer issued a notice under section 34(1)(a) on March 9, 1956. In view of the uncertainty prevailing on the validity of section 5(7-A), the Income-tax Officer, "F" Ward, who had territorial jurisdiction over the assessee's place of residence, also issued a notice under section 34(1)(a) on March 30, 1956. Though in the reassessment proceedings the assessee did not raise the question of jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer, Special Investigation Circle, to issue the notice, the assessee raised the question in the appeal and contended that, as the Income-tax Officer, "F" Ward, had issued a notice subsequent to the one issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Investigation Circle, it must be presumed that the Commissioner had again transferred the case of the assessee to the Income-tax Officer, "F" Ward. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner rejected this contention. In the reference that ultimately followed: Held, that there was no warrant for any such presumption. Section 64(5) casts a statutory duty on the transferred authority to dispose of the assessment or re-assessment in accordance with the directions of the Commissioner ; and the re-assessment was valid.…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register