Law:

Section:

Section 256, read with section 124 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [Corresponding to section 66, read with section 64 of Indian Income-tax Act, 1922] - High Court - Reference to - Assessment years 1951-52 to 1956-57 - Dispute arose regarding jurisdictional High Court - Whether where a Tribunal had jurisdiction over more States than one, and it had got to make a choice, in absence of a statutory provision relating to matter it must be guided by principle of section 64, that is to say, place where assessee carried on his business, profession or vocation or resided - Held, yes FACTS For the assessment years 1951-52 to 1956-57, the penalty levied on the assessee was set aside by the Tribunal. It further declined to make reference at the Commissioner's instance as the questions involved were factual. On application under section 66(2). HELD Section 64 deals with place of assessment and this is determined by the place where an assessee carries on a business or profession or vocation and, in other cases, the assessee shall be assessed by the ITO of the area in which he resides. Since there was no direct statutory provision governing the matter, the notions which applied to a determination of the jurisdiction of a court should be called in aid. On that view, where a Tribunal had jurisdiction over more States than one, and it had got to make a choice, in the absence of a statutory provision relating to the matter it must be guided by the principles of section 64, that is to say, the place where the assessee carried on his business, profession or vocation or resided. On that test, it was the High Court of Kerala which would have jurisdiction. Also, the penalty proceedings were originally initiated by the ITO at Trichur and it was because of a directive by section 274(2) he made a reference to the IAC. But in effect, the penalty proceedings are but a continuation of the original assessment orders and the subsequent proceedings started by the ITO at Trichur, for levy of penalty. On that basis too, the Madras High Court would have no jurisdiction under section 66(2). Hence, the application under section 66(2) was dismissed. JUDGMENT Veeraswami, J.-These are petitions filed by…

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