| Case ID |
0cd12687-85a9-4265-b28a-7c93d9743b94 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
IT REFERENCE No. 71 OF 1968 |
| Decision Date |
Mar 08, 1973 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The court held that the Income-tax Officer's order, which dropped the proceedings under section 22(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, could not be appealed under section 30 of the same Act. The court reasoned that since the Income-tax Officer did not determine or compute the loss, the order was not appealable. The decision emphasized the importance of the substantive interpretation of the order over its form, concluding that the order effectively did not reject the assessee's claim but merely refrained from determining it due to the late filing of the return. Thus, the appeal was dismissed in favor of the revenue. |
| Summary |
In the case of Katihar Match Works (1954) (P.) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, decided by the Calcutta High Court, the crux of the matter revolved around the appealability of an order made by the Income-tax Officer (ITO) under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The ITO had dropped proceedings regarding the assessee's claim for loss due to late filing of the return. The court examined the provisions of sections 246 and 30 of the Income-tax Act and concluded that since the ITO did not compute the loss, his order could not be considered appealable. The ruling highlighted the necessity of substantive legal interpretation, stating that the essence of the order is more significant than its form. This case illustrates the legal complexities surrounding tax assessments and the procedural rights of assessees, making it a pivotal reference point in tax law discussions. Key terms include appealability, income tax, assessment year, and limitation provisions. The judgment ultimately favored the revenue, reinforcing the procedural rigor required in tax matters and the critical importance of timely submissions. This ruling serves as a cautionary tale for businesses regarding compliance with tax regulations and the implications of procedural missteps. |
| Court |
Calcutta High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Commissioner of Income Tax,
Katihar Match Works (1954) (P.) Ltd.
|
| Judges |
A.N. SEN,
S.K. HAZRA
|
| Lawyers |
B.C. Dutta,
P.K. Ghosh,
A.K. Basu,
Suhas Sen
|
| Petitioners |
Katihar Match Works (1954) (P.) Ltd.
|
| Respondents |
Commissioner of Income Tax
|
| Citations |
1975 SLD 618,
(1975) 99 ITR 251
|
| Other Citations |
Ajodhya Nath Pahary v. Srinath Chandra Pahary AIR 1921 Cal. 472,
All India Groundnut Syndicate Ltd. v. CIT [1954] 25 ITR 90(Bom.),
CIT v. Kulu Valley Transport Co. (P.) Ltd. [1970] 77 ITR 518 (SC),
CIT v. Ranchhoddas Karsondas [1959] 36 ITR 569 (SC),
Dhonkal Singh v. Phakkar Singh [1893] ILR 15 All 84 [FB],
Dunna Venkata Rao v. Venkatakumaramahipathi Surya Rao AIR 1950 Mad. 2,
Gopi Lal v. CIT [1967] 65 ITR 477 (Punj.),
Haji Mohommed Matharu v. Joseph Achamma AIR 1957 Trav.-Coch 92,
Mohommad Taqi Khan v. Raja Ram AIR 1936 All 820 [FB],
Mohan Lal Khemka v. CIT [1971] 81 ITR 89 (All.),
Murugappa Mudaliar v. Desappa Nayanim Varu AIR 1950 Mad 314,
Puddomonee Dassee v. Roy Muthooranath Chowdhry [1874] 12 Beng LR 411,
Ram Dahin Bahani Prosad v. Raghunandan Nunia AIR 1952 Assam 172,
Smt. Sarada Sundari Das v. Jabbar Ali AIR 1939 Cal. 331,
Sheoraj Singh v. Kamley Lal AIR 1948 All 172,
Sir Hukumchand Mannalal & Co. v. CIT [1966] 60 ITR 99 (SC)
|
| Laws Involved |
Income-tax Act, 1961,
Indian Income-tax Act, 1922
|
| Sections |
246,
139(2),
30,
22(2),
22(2A)
|