Case Details

Citation(s)
1991 SLG 1857 1991 SLD 1857 (1991) 189 ITR 205
Delhi High Court

M.C., JAIN, C.J. AND ARUN KUMAR, J.

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

Sukhmal Kumar

v.

Commissioner of IncomE tax

Law:

Section:

Section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Revision - Of other orders - Assessment year 1973-74 - Relevant assessment was completed under section 144 and certain addition was made as assessee failed to furnish reply to Assessing Officer - On an application under section 264 assessee submitted that relevant documents had already been furnished - Whether order of Commissioner in rejecting assessee's application on ground that at this distance of time he saw no point in interfering as there was no reasonable hope that required evidence would be produced which assessee failed to produce on all earlier occasions, was justified - Held, no. FACTS While completing the assessment pertaining to the assessment year 1974-75, the assessee was asked to explain the investment made by her in a partnership firm. The assessee explained that investment was made out of the amount received by her on mortgage deed executed by her in respect of her property on 10-2-1972. Since the mortgage deed related to the period relevant to the assessment year 1973-74 notice under section 148 was issued. The assessment for the assessment year 1973-74 was completed under section 144 and certain addition was made. On appeal, the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the assessment even though the assessee did not appear. On an application under section 264 the assessee submitted that required documents had already been furnished. The Commissioner rejected the assessee's application on the ground that there was no reasonable hope that the required evidence would be produced which the assessee failed to produce on all the earlier occasions. On writ: HELD In the instant case, the Commissioner did not decide the matter on merits. Besides rejecting the assessee's contention that the notice of hearing was served on 26-10-1985, he further observed that at this distance of time, he saw no reasonable hope that the required evidence would be produced which the assessee failed to produce on all earlier occasions. Such an expression was not called for without giving the assessee an opportunity of producing evidence. Whether the assessee would be successful in producing the evidence could not be looked into…
🔒
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