Case Details

Citation(s)
1970 SLG 393 1970 SLD 393 (1970) 76 ITR 692
Supreme Court of India
CIVIL APPEAL No. 2379 OF 1966, dated December 4, 1969
J.C. SHAH AND K.S. HEGDE, JJ.
D.N. Mukherjee for the Appellant. Sukumar Mitra, and R.N. Sachthey for the
Respondent.

Champalal Binani

v.

Commissioner of IncomE tax

Law:

Section:

Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [Corresponding to section 33B of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922] - Revision - Of orders prejudicial to interests of revenue - Three copies of notice for reassessment were sent by Commissioner to three different places of business of assessee, addresses of which were furnished by assessee in return filed - Notice was also affixed at two places of assessee's business at given addresses - On date of hearing fixed none appeared for assessee - Commissioner cancelled assessment order and directed ITO for fresh assessment - Grievance of assessee was not that notice was not served but that he should have been given more time to make his representation - Assessee never attempted to get into touch with Commissioner nor asked for an opportunity to file his objections to proposed reassessment - Alternate remedy of appeal was available under Act to assessee against order of Commissioner but assessee invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of High Court - High Court set aside order of Commissioner - On appeal under letters patent by revenue, High Court set aside order of writ Court - Whether in instant case writ jurisdiction of High Court could be invoked - Held, no - Whether, therefore, High Court in appeal was right in setting aside order of writ Court and in holding that Commissioner's order under section 33B of 1922 Act was properly passed - Held, yes FACTS The Commissioner had issued a notice under section 33B of the 1922 Act to the assessee. Three copies of the notice were sent to the three different places of business of the assessee on the addresses furnished by the assessee in the return filed. The notice were also affixed at the two places on the addresses given by the assessee. On the date of hearing fixed none appeared on behalf of the assessee. The Commissioner cancelled the assessment order and directed the ITO to make fresh assessment in accordance with law after fresh enquiries and investigation. On writ, the High Court set aside the order of the Commissioner. On appeal under the letters patent by the revenue, the High Court held that the notice addressed to the assessee was properly served and the assessee had opportunity…
🔒
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