| Case ID |
03a14858-0ff2-413c-ad5a-7da44d9ba7b4 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
G.A. No.2447 of 1996 |
| Decision Date |
Sep 17, 1996 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The appeal filed by Brooke Bond Lipton India Ltd against the judgment of the learned Single Judge was dismissed. The court held that the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Income-tax to invoke his power under section 263 of the Income Tax Act was not disputed by the appellant. The court emphasized that it is not permissible for a party to invoke writ jurisdiction upon receiving a mere show-cause notice. The appellant had the opportunity to respond to the notice issued by the Commissioner of Income-tax, but instead chose to file a writ petition prematurely, which was not justified. The court also noted that the appellant had submitted a detailed reply to the show-cause notice and should have awaited the outcome of the proceedings before approaching the court. Therefore, the judgment under appeal was upheld without any order as to costs. |
| Summary |
This case revolves around the appeal filed by Brooke Bond Lipton India Ltd against the judgment of the Calcutta High Court concerning a notice issued by the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The case highlights the procedural nuances of tax law, particularly the importance of responding to show-cause notices before seeking judicial intervention. The appellant argued that the notice was invalid and that they were entitled to certain deductions under sections 32-AB and 33-AB of the Income Tax Act. The court reiterated that parties should exhaust available remedies before invoking writ jurisdiction. This case serves as a critical reference for taxpayers regarding compliance with income tax regulations and the procedural requirements for challenging tax assessments. Legal practitioners and tax professionals should pay close attention to the implications of this ruling, particularly the emphasis on administrative remedies. Keywords: Income Tax Act, tax law, judicial intervention, show-cause notice, legal compliance. |
| Court |
Calcutta High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Tea Estates India Limited,
Doom Dooma Tea Limited,
Brooke Bond Lipton India Ltd
|
| Judges |
V.N. Khare, C.J.,
V.K. Gupta, J.
|
| Lawyers |
Dr. Debi Pal,
Pronob Pal,
Sint. Manisha Sill,
R. Mitra,
Ramesh Chowdhury
|
| Petitioners |
Brooke Bond Lipton India Ltd
|
| Respondents |
Commissioner of Income Tax,
Dr. Debi Pal,
Pronob Pal,
Sint. Manisha Sill,
R. Mitra,
Ramesh Chowdhury
|
| Citations |
1998 SLD 371,
1998 PTD 2855,
(1996) 222 ITR 540
|
| Other Citations |
Indo Asahi Glass Co. v. ITO (1996) 222 ITR 534 (Cal.)
|
| Laws Involved |
Income Tax Act, 1961
|
| Sections |
263
|