Case Details

Citation(s)
1962 SLG 365 1962 SLD 365 (1962) 44 ITR 870 (1962) 6 TAX 34
Calcutta High Court
MATTER No. 72 OF 1960, FEBRUARY 10, 1961
SINHA, J.
S. Mitra for the Applicant. E.R. Meyer and B.L. Pal for
Respondent.

Suganchand Saraogi

v.

Commissioner of IncomE tax

Law:

Section:

Section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Corresponding to section 33A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922) - Revision - Of other orders - Assessment year 1953-54 - Whether order under section 33A of 1922 Act is administrative order and not judicial order - Held, yes - Whether although it is very desirable that reasons should be given in an order under section 33A of 1922 Act, it cannot be held that without such reasons being given, order would be defective - Held, yes FACTS A notice under section 22(2) of the 1922 Act was issued and served on the assessee firm. As no return was filed, a notice under section 22(4) of the 1922 Act, was issued and served on the assessee. No response having been received, a final notice was served to the effect that if the party failed to appear, an ex-parte assessment would be completed. In spite of the reminders the assessee failed to comply with the requisition. Thereupon, the ITO, on the basis of previous rewards and information, completed the assessment on an ex-parte basis and determined the total income at Rs. 3 lakhs. Against this assessment order no appeal was preferred, but an application was made for revision to the Commissioner. The Commissioner held that the ITO examined subsequently the books of account relating to the assessment year 1953-54 and found that the assessee's brokerage income was Rs. 1,18,000 gross. He, however, taking into account all the relevant facts of the case reduced the business income to Rs. 1,75,000. The assessee had also made an application for getting the benefit of registration. This prayer was rejected, because the assessee had not made an application for registration at the proper time. On writ: HELD It is not necessary that every detail of the calculations should be set out in the order under section 33A of the 1922 Act. The fact that such an order is an administrative order and not a judicial one, has some bearing on the question. If it is an administrative order, it is not justiciable and, therefore, why the detailed reasonings should be given. This is a risk which the assessee takes in exercising his rights under section 33A(2) of the 1922 Act . He has an alternative remedy by way of…
🔒
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