| Case ID |
388da657-b8ff-42e9-a1c8-bbd80f82538d |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
IT REFERENCE No. 51 OF 1965 |
| Decision Date |
Feb 14, 1969 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The decision held that the Income-tax Officer (ITO) was justified in proceeding to make the assessment under section 23(4) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, due to the failure of the assessee to comply with the notice under section 22(2). The Tribunal's conclusion that a further default under section 22(3) was necessary to invoke section 23(4) was rejected. The court clarified that there is no obligation imposed by section 22(3) of the Act, and thus, the non-compliance with that section does not prevent the assessment under section 23(4). The final ruling favored the revenue, emphasizing the importance of timely compliance with tax notices. |
| Summary |
This case revolves around the interpretation of the Income-tax Act, 1922, particularly sections 22 and 23, which govern the filing of income tax returns and the consequent assessments by the Income-tax Officer. The crux of the case is whether an assessment can be made under section 23(4) without a default under section 22(3). The Calcutta High Court concluded that the Income-tax Officer was justified in making an assessment based on the failure of the assessee to respond to notices under section 22(2). The case highlights the legal obligations of taxpayers to comply with tax notices and the consequences of failing to do so. The ruling clarifies that while section 22(3) provides an opportunity for taxpayers to file a revised return, it does not impose an obligation that must be fulfilled to proceed with an assessment under section 23(4). This decision is crucial for understanding tax compliance and the responsibilities of taxpayers under the Income-tax Act, emphasizing the need for prompt action in response to tax notices. |
| Court |
Calcutta High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
S.C Deb,
Sabyasachi Mukharji
|
| Lawyers |
B.L. Pal,
D. Sen
|
| Petitioners |
Commissioner of Income Tax
|
| Respondents |
Chunilal Hemraj
|
| Citations |
1970 SLD 690,
(1970) 78 ITR 193,
(1971) 24 TAX 207
|
| Other Citations |
Behari Lal Chatterji v. CIT [1934] 2 ITR 377 (All.),
CIT v. Ranchhoddas Karsondas [1959] 36 ITR 569,
Neath Rural District Council v. Williams [1950] 2 All E.R. 625 (KB)
|
| Laws Involved |
Income-tax Act, 1922,
Income-tax Act, 1961
|
| Sections |
23(4),
22(2),
22(3)
|