| Case ID |
05bd688f-7c82-4c53-b601-f8c528efc054 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
MISC. I.T. REFERENCE No. 320 OF 1960 |
| Decision Date |
Jul 10, 1962 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The court held that where an omission was made in the original assessment to consider and apply the relevant statutory provision, the successor assessing officer is entitled to proceed under section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The case revolved around the interpretation of section 4(3)(i) and whether the income applied or finally set apart for religious or charitable purposes was exempt from taxation. The successor officer determined that the previous officer had allowed an excessive deduction, which resulted in income escaping assessment. The court affirmed that the successor's action was justified based on the information regarding the omission by the predecessor. |
| Summary |
The case of Asghar Ali Mohammad Ali vs. Commissioner of INCOME TAX revolves around the Income Tax Act, 1922, specifically sections 34, 147, and 148. This landmark case examines the implications of omitted statutory provisions in tax assessments. The Allahabad High Court ruled that the successor assessing officer can take action under section 34 when it is found that income has escaped assessment due to the predecessor's oversight. The interpretation of income applied or finally set apart for charitable purposes was pivotal in determining the taxable income. The decision emphasizes the importance of adhering to statutory provisions and the role of information in tax assessments, making it significant for tax law practitioners and scholars. Keywords: Income Tax Act, tax assessment, escaped income, statutory provisions, charitable purposes, tax law. |
| Court |
Allahabad High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
M.C. Desai, C.J.,
Brijlal Gupta, J.
|
| Lawyers |
A.R. Agarwala,
Mohammad Ayub,
R.V. Khan,
Gopal Behari
|
| Petitioners |
Asghar Ali Mohammad Ali
|
| Respondents |
Commissioner of INCOME TAX
|
| Citations |
1964 SLD 366 = (1964) 52 ITR 962
|
| Other Citations |
Andertion Halstead Ltd. v. Birrell [1932] 1 KB 271,
Chatturam Horilram Ltd. v. CIT [1955] 27 ITR 709 (SC),
Commercial Structures Ltd. v. R.A. Briggs [1949] 17 ITR (Suppl.) 30 (CA),
Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh v. CIT [1959] 35 ITR 1 (SC),
Salem provident Fund Society v. CIT [1961] 42 ITR 547 (Mad.)
|
| Laws Involved |
Income Tax Act, 1922
|
| Sections |
34,
147,
148
|