Case Details

Citation(s)
1963 SLG 3430 = 1963 SLD 3430 = 1963 PLD 311
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No. 405 of 1961, decided on 3rd January 1963.
Presented By: Manzur Qadir, C. J. and Shabir Ahmad, J  
Javed Hashmi for Petitioner.   Sh. Abdul Haque with Riaz-ul-Haq for
Respondent.   Dates of hearing : 3rd, 4th and 5th December 1962.    

BARNALA COMMISSION SHOP-Petitioner  

VERSUS

  THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, B-WARD, LYALLPUR Respondent

Law:

Section:

(a) Writ petition- (Grounds)--   ---Failure of Income-tax Officer to comply with provision of condition precedent to issuing notice to assessee under S. 34 (1), Income-tax Act (XI of 1922)-Objection not raised to any part of proceedings on any ground at any stage before Income-tax Officer-Petition, otherwise deserving dismissal in limine, admitted to hearing since point of objection arose also in several other petitions.   (b) Writ petition-(Grounds)-----   -----Income-tax assessment proceed ings under S. 34, Income-tax Act (XI of 1922), completed beyond time-Alternative remedy by appeal under Income-tax Act (XI of 1922) availed but, without waiting for result, assessee preferring petition invoking writ jurisdiction of High Court-Petition otherwise deserving dismissal in limine admitted to hearing, since point of objection arose also in several other petitions.   (c) Income-tax Act (XI of 1922)------   ----S. 34(1), proviso-Provision for protection of assesses-Notice in contravention of proviso Order passed in such proceedings invalid-"Definite information " No absolute criterion of "definiteness"-Matter for departmental regulation-Mere use of incorrect form for notice not enough to establish that information was not "definite :"   Held, that an order passed in proceedings which are instituted on a notice that is found to be in contravention of the last proviso to the first subsection of section 34 of the Income-tax Act, would not be a valid order.   1961 P T D (Trib.) 211 approved.   The provision of the proviso to section 34(1), Income-tax Act, 1922 is obviously intended for the protection of the persons to be assessed. It impliedly gives them a guarantee that if an assessment which has once been made, or a closed case in which no assessment has been made, is to be re-opened in the absence of `definite information', it shall not be so re-opened, unless a decision to do so has been taken at a higher level of responsibility. It goes further, and lays down the mode by which that decision is to be signified and the stage at which it has to be taken. It must be expressed in writing, and it…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register