| Case ID |
0ba3bf7b-453b-4100-812f-a9f69ab9eae6 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
IT REFERENCE NO. 30 OF 1961 |
| Decision Date |
Mar 20, 1964 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The Tribunal held that the respective contentions of the assessee and the department were determined by the first order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner made on February 27, 1958, and since there was no appeal against that order either by the assessee or by the department, no part of it could be challenged in the course of the appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal further pointed out that the assessee's challenge to the principle of valuation was not thrown even when the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was considering the matter for the second time. The Tribunal in these circumstances refused to entertain the assessee's contentions relating to principles of valuation. The first order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner laying down the method or principle of valuation made on February 27, 1958, had become final and binding on the parties since no appeal was preferred against it. The order was not open to attack in the assessee's appeal against the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's order of November 29, 1958. The Tribunal was justified in not allowing the assessee to raise the contention regarding the valuation of shares. |
| Summary |
In the case of Orient Trading Co. Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income tax, the Calcutta High Court dealt with the appeal concerning the assessment year 1954-55 under the Income Tax Act, 1922. The central issue revolved around the method of valuation of shares declared by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) that was not challenged by either the assessee or the revenue. The Tribunal emphasized that the AAC's order made on February 27, 1958, which laid down the principles of valuation, became final due to the lack of appeal against it. The Tribunal further clarified that the assessee could not challenge the valuation method in a subsequent appeal as it had not pursued the statutory remedies available. The decision favored the revenue, establishing the importance of adhering to procedural requirements in tax assessments. This case highlights the significance of the AAC's orders and the binding nature of unchallenged decisions within income tax proceedings, reinforcing the principle that parties must contest orders in a timely manner to preserve their rights. |
| Court |
Calcutta High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
|
| Judges |
S.P. Mitra,
S. Masud
|
| Lawyers |
S. Mitra,
D. Pal,
Meyer,
B. Pal
|
| Petitioners |
Orient Trading Co. Ltd
|
| Respondents |
Commissioner of Income tax
|
| Citations |
1965 SLD 188,
(1965) 58 ITR 553
|
| Other Citations |
CIT v. Bai Shirinbai K. Kooka [1956] 30 ITR 753 (Bom.),
CIT v. Bai Shirinbai K. Kooka [1962] 46 ITR 86 (SC)
|
| Laws Involved |
Income Tax Act, 1922
|
| Sections |
33
|