Case Details

Citation(s)
2004 SLG 2211 2004 SLD 2211 (2004) 266 ITR 283
Allahabad High Court
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS WRIT PETITION NO. 178 OF 2003 JANUARY 12, 2004
M. KATJU AND U. PANDEY, JJ.

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

V.K. Packaging Industries

v.

Tax Recovery Officer

Law:

Section:

Section 226 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Collection and recovery of tax - Other modes of recovery - Assessment year 1997-98 - Petitioner-firm had filed its return of income - Assessing Officer made additions on basis of copies of accounts of third parties obtained by issuing notice under section 133(6) - Petitioner alleged that additions were made without supplying to him copies of said accounts given by third parties - On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) passed ex parte order against petitioner - On second appeal, Tribunal set aside order of Commissioner (Appeals) and remanded back matter with direction to provide said copies of accounts to petitioner - In meantime, Tax Recovery Officer (TRO) issued notices under section 226(3) for realisation of demand assessed by Assessing Officer - Whether under doctrine of merger, orders of Assessing Officer and Commissioner (Appeals) had both merged into order of Tribunal and, hence, orders of Assessing Officer and Commissioner (Appeals) ceased to exist after order of Tribunal - Held, yes - Whether no demand could be issued against petitioner and no sum could have been realized from him in pursuance of assessment order of Assessing Officer when said assessment order had in fact ceased to exist - Held, yes - Whether, therefore, notice under section 226(3) was wholly illegal as there was no valid demand against petitioner and as such it was to be quashed - Held, yes FACTS The petitioner had filed its return for the relevant assessment year. The Assessing Officer invoked section 143(3) and assessed the income of the petitioner which was higher than the income disclosed by him. It was alleged that during the course of hearing, the Assessing Officer had issued notices under section 133(6) to some third parties for obtaining copies of accounts of the petitioner's firm from their books of account. The parties sent their copies of the accounts to the Assessing Officer and on the basis of those copies of accounts, the Assessing Officer made additions in the hands of the petitioner as undisclosed income without supplying the said copies of the accounts to the petitioner despite repeated requests. On appeal, the Commissioner…
🔒
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