Case Details

Citation(s)
1981 SLG 1722 1981 SLD 1722 (1981) 130 ITR 708
Allahabad High Court
C.M. WRIT PETITION No. 350 OF 1976
SATISH CHANDRA, C.J. AND H.N. SETH, J.
V.P. Upadhya for the Petitioner. R.K. Gulati and A. Gupta for the
Respondent

v.

Income Tax Officer

Law:

Section:

Section 153, read with sections 148 and 150 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Assessment - Time limit for completion of - Assessment year 1967-68 - Tribunal held that income from two sources accrued to assessee and same could not be clubbed with total income of her husband under section 64(iii) - However before passing said order, assessee was not given opportunity of being heard as referred to in Explanation 3 to section 153 - To give effect to order of Tribunal, ITO issued notice to assessee under section 148 which was beyond prescribed period of limitation - Revenue sought to bring case within section 150 - Whether section 150 would not apply by virtue of non-compliance of Explanation 3 to section 153 and, therefore, notice issued was not valid and was liable to be quashed - Held, yes FACTS For the assessment years 1964-65 to 1968-69, the ITO added the income of the assessee/petitioner from two sources in the total income of the petitioner's husband under section 64. The AAC held the income from the two sources arose to the petitioner and could not be clubbed with the total income of husband. The Tribunal affirmed the finding of the AAC. In consequence, the impugned notice under section 148 was issued by the ITO for the assessment year 1967-68 only. On writ, the petitioner contended that she was not given an opportunity of being heard before the Tribunal passed the order excluding the income from the two sources from the total income of the husband and holding it to be the income of the wife and, that notice issued under section 148 was beyond prescribed period of limitation and thus not valid. HELD The Tribunal's order excluded the income in dispute from the total income of the husband on the finding that it accrued to the wife. The opening clause of Explanation 3 to section 153 was hence satisfied, but the proviso contained therein had also to be satisfied. The proviso is that such other person shall be given an opportunity of being heard before the said order was passed. Such other person refers to the person whose income it is held to be. In the instant case, the appeal was in relation to the husband's assessment. The finding was that the income accrued to…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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