| Case ID |
0492bb2c-b654-4abd-a622-ad2044e166e9 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
IT REFERRED CASE No. 4 OF 1972 |
| Decision Date |
Nov 21, 1972 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The court held that the conditions for making a best judgment assessment under section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, are alternative and not cumulative. The Income-tax Officer (ITO) was found to have acted within his powers despite not issuing a notice under section 142(1), as this notice is discretionary. The Tribunal's decision was upheld, ruling in favor of the Department. The case emphasizes the discretionary nature of procedural notices in tax assessments, ensuring that the ITO retains authority to assess based on available information even without certain notices being issued. |
| Summary |
This case discusses the discretionary powers of the Income-tax Officer under the Income-tax Act, 1961, specifically regarding the issuance of notices under sections 142(1) and 144. The court examined whether the absence of a notice under section 142(1) invalidated the assessment made under section 144. The judges concluded that the prerequisites for best judgment assessments are alternative conditions, allowing the ITO to proceed without issuing such notices. The ruling serves as a precedent for similar cases, highlighting the importance of understanding the discretionary nature of tax law processes. The case is crucial for tax practitioners and advocates, clarifying procedural aspects that can impact assessments and appeals in income tax cases. |
| Court |
Mysore High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
G.K. Govinda Bhat,
V.S. Malimath
|
| Lawyers |
A.V. Albal,
S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy
|
| Petitioners |
Not available
|
| Respondents |
Commissioner of Income Tax
|
| Citations |
1974 SLD 591 = (1974) 96 ITR 333
|
| Other Citations |
CIT v. Segu Buchiah Setty [1970] 77 ITR 539 (SC)
|
| Laws Involved |
Income-tax Act, 1961
|
| Sections |
144,
139(2),
142(1)
|