| Case ID |
d697ca50-271b-4e2e-81e8-1f234902774a |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
D-2741 of 1939 |
| Decision Date |
Jan 01, 1942 |
| Hearing Date |
Jan 01, 1942 |
| Decision |
The decision of the Allahabad High Court held in favor of the assessee, affirming that the Income-tax Officer was aware of the assessee's appointment as a Judge during the assessment period for 1933-34. The court ruled that the assessee had been overcharged and had a valid claim for relief under Section 25(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The court emphasized that the claim made was not barred by limitation, as the assessee had made a verbal claim before the Income-tax Officer prior to the formal application. The court also rejected the argument that the claim needed to be in writing, stating that there is no such requirement in the law. The Commissioner’s refusal to grant relief was found to be prejudicial to the assessee, thus allowing for a reference to the High Court. |
| Summary |
This case revolves around the interpretation of the Income-tax Act, specifically concerning the provisions for discontinuation of a business and the subsequent tax implications. The assessee, an advocate who was appointed as a Judge, sought relief from income tax imposed during a period he claimed to have ceased practicing law. The court ruled that the Income-tax Officer had sufficient information to grant relief under Section 25(3) of the Act, and the delay in filing the claim was not sufficient grounds for denial. The decision underscores the importance of judicial awareness in tax assessments and the rights of individuals to seek redress for over-assessments. Keywords: Income Tax, Discontinuation of Business, Judicial Review, Tax Relief, Advocate, Judge, High Court. |
| Court |
Allahabad High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
Collister,
Bajpai
|
| Lawyers |
Not available
|
| Petitioners |
Not available
|
| Respondents |
Not available
|
| Citations |
1942 SLD 40,
(1942) 10 ITR 152
|
| Other Citations |
Voora Sreeramulu Chetty v. CIT, Madras [1939] 7 ITR 263,
Amulakharai Chottalal v. CIT [1940] 8 ITR 382 (Rang.),
Central India Spg. Wvg. & Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1937] 5 ITR 267 (Nag.),
Indrachand Kagriwal v. CIT [1939] 7 ITR 506 (Pat.),
Nanhe Mal Janki Nath v. CIT [1940] 8 ITR 437 (Lah.),
Venkatachalam Chettiar v. CIT [1935] 3 ITR 55 (Mad.)
|
| Laws Involved |
Income-tax Act, 1961,
Indian Income-tax Act, 1922
|
| Sections |
176,
264,
256,
25(3),
33,
66(2)
|