| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1963 SLG 3601 = 1963 SLD 3601 = 1963 PTD 534 |
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.
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-TAY OFFICER, B-WARD, LYALLPUR Respondent
Law:
Section:
(a) Income-tax--- ----Writ petition-(Grounds)-Failure of Income tax Officer to comply with provision of condition precedent to issuing notice to assessee under S. 34 (I), 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) Income-tax---- ---Writ petition-(Grounds)-Income-tax assess ment proceedings 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 assessees-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" [1961 P T D (Trib.) 211 approved] 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…