| Case ID |
2293dfbb-e2ed-4d69-8a40-4a0da449ce33 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
|
| Decision Date |
|
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The court held that the Income Tax Officer (ITO) can issue a notice under section 34 even after an assessment has become final in appeal by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC). Furthermore, it ruled that such a notice can be issued without the need for admissible evidence proving that income from specific sources had escaped assessment. The assessment in question was classified as an assessment of escaped income, and it was confirmed that it was not a revision of the entire assessment. The decision was made in favor of the revenue, reinforcing the authority of the ITO to act on newly discovered evidence of omissions in the accounts. |
| Summary |
This case, decided by the Allahabad High Court, addressed the powers of the Income Tax Officer under section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, particularly concerning income escaping assessment for the assessment year 1931-32. The court confirmed that the ITO could issue notices even after previous assessments were finalized, thereby allowing for the assessment of escaped income based on newly discovered evidence. The decision emphasized the significance of accurate accounting and the ITO's role in ensuring tax compliance. This ruling is critical for understanding tax law and the procedural powers of tax authorities in India. Relevant keywords include 'Income Tax Act', 'assessment year', 'escaped income', 'Income Tax Officer', and 'legal compliance'. |
| Court |
Allahabad High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
Collister,
Bajpai
|
| Lawyers |
Not available
|
| Petitioners |
Not available
|
| Respondents |
Not available
|
| Citations |
1942 SLD 51 = (1942) 10 ITR 79
|
| Other Citations |
CIT, Bengal v. Mahaliram Ramjidas [1940] (8 I.T.R. 442),
CIT v. Mahaliram Ramjidas [1940] 8 ITR 442 (PC)
|
| Laws Involved |
Income-tax Act, 1961
|
| Sections |
147,
34
|