| Case ID |
2153ba12-60dd-4ac9-bb63-ee4de48767b9 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
CIVIL APPEAL No. 1096 OF 1963 |
| Decision Date |
Oct 27, 1964 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The Supreme Court of India upheld the decision of the Madras High Court, holding that the re-assessment under section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 for the assessment year 1944-45 was not valid. The Court emphasized that the return filed by the assessee, even though it was in response to an invalid notice, could not be disregarded. Consequently, the department was not entitled to issue a further notice under section 34(1)(a) based on the assumption of omission or failure to file a return under section 22. This decision affirmed the High Court's stance that the re-assessment was invalid. |
| Summary |
In the landmark case of Civil Appeal No. 1096 of 1963, decided on October 27, 1964, by the Supreme Court of India, the court addressed the validity of a re-assessment under section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the assessment year 1944-45. The appellant, Commissioner of IncomeE tax, challenged the re-assessment order against S. Raman Chettiar. The core issue revolved around whether the return filed by the assessee in response to an invalid notice could be considered valid and thus preclude further re-assessment. The Supreme Court upheld the Madras High Court's decision, determining that the return, although submitted following an invalid notice, could not be ignored. Consequently, the department was not authorized to issue a subsequent notice under section 34(1)(a) based on presumed omissions. This case underscores the importance of the validity of notices in tax assessments and ensures that taxpayers' returns are respected even if procedural errors occur initially. The judgment also clarifies the interpretation of voluntary returns under section 22(3) of the Income-tax Act, emphasizing that responses to notices, whether general or specific, fall within the ambit of voluntary returns, thereby safeguarding taxpayers from arbitrary re-assessments. |
| Court |
Supreme Court of India
|
| Entities Involved |
Commissioner of IncomeE tax,
S. Raman Chettiar,
K.N. Rajagopala Sastri,
R.H. Dhebar,
R.N. Sachthey,
S. Swaminathan,
R. Gopalakrishnan
|
| Judges |
K. Subba Rao,
J.C. Shah,
S.M. Sikri
|
| Lawyers |
K.N. Rajagopala Sastri,
R.H. Dhebar,
R.N. Sachthey,
S. Swaminathan,
R. Gopalakrishnan
|
| Petitioners |
Commissioner of IncomeE tax
|
| Respondents |
S. Raman Chettiar
|
| Citations |
1965 SLD 402,
(1965) 55 ITR 630,
(1965) 11 TAX 267
|
| Other Citations |
S. Raman Chettiar v. CIT [1961] 42 ITR 700 (Mad.),
R.K. Das & Co. v. CIT [1956] 30 ITR 439 (Cal.),
CIT v. Maharaja Pratapsingh Bahadur [1961] 41 ITR 421 (SC),
CIT v. Maharaja Pratapsingh Bahadur [1950] 30 ITR 484 (Pat.),
CIT v. Ranchhoddas Karsondas [1959] 36 ITR 569 (SC)
|
| Laws Involved |
Income-tax Act, 1961,
Indian Income-tax Act, 1922
|
| Sections |
139,
147,
22,
34
|