1940 (4) TMI 23 - HC - Income Tax

Income-tax Officer not required to conduct quasi-judicial enquiry before issuing notice under Section 34.

Commissioner of Income-tax Versus Mahaliram Ramjidas

The Privy Council held that the Income-tax Officer is not required to conduct a quasi-judicial enquiry before issuing a notice under Section 34 of the ... - Issues Involved:1. True construction of Section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.2. Whether the Income-tax Officer must conduct a quasi-judicial enquiry before initiating proceedings under Section 34.3. The procedural requirements for the Income-tax Officer to issue a notice under Section 34.Detailed Analysis:1. True Construction of Section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922:The judgment focuses on the interpretation of Section 34, which allows the Income-tax Officer to reassess income if it has escaped assessment or has been assessed at too low a rate. The section states: 'If for any reason income, profits or gains chargeable to income-tax has escaped assessment in any year or has been assessed at too low a rate, the Income-tax Officer may, at any time within one year of the end of that year, serve on the person liable to pay tax... a notice containing all or any of the requirements which may be included in a notice under sub-section (2) of Section 22 and may proceed to assess or re-assess such income, profits or gains, and the provisions of this Act shall, so far as may be, apply accordingly as if the notice were a notice issued under that sub-section.'2. Whether the Income-tax Officer Must Conduct a Quasi-Judicial Enquiry Before Initiating Proceedings Under Section 34:The High Court had construed Section 34 as requiring the Income-tax Officer to indicate to the assessee the nature of the alleged escapement from assessment and to give the assessee an opportunity of being heard before deciding that income has escaped assessment. The High Court held that the Income-tax Officer was not entitled to exercise his powers under the section unless he had first held a quasi-judicial enquiry to which the assessee had been convened.However, the Privy Council disagreed with this interpretation. It held that Section 34 does not require the Income-tax Officer to hold a quasi-judicial enquiry before issuing a notice. The judgment emphasized that the section deals with the machinery of assessment and does not impose any charge on the subject. The Council reasoned that the section should be interpreted in a way that makes the machinery workable. It was noted that the Income-tax Officer does not have the powers to convene the assessee or to issue notices calling on him to produce documents before deciding that income has escaped assessment.3. The Procedural Requirements for the Income-tax Officer to Issue a Notice Under Section 34:The Privy Council highlighted that the operative part of Section 34 empowers the Income-tax Officer to proceed de novo under sub-section (2) of Section 22, which leads to an enquiry under Section 23(2) and (3). In this enquiry, the assessee has a statutory right to appear and produce evidence. Therefore, requiring a quasi-judicial enquiry before issuing a notice under Section 34 would result in duplication of procedure. The Council concluded that it is sufficient for the Income-tax Officer to have good ground for believing that the assessee's profits have escaped assessment or have been assessed at too low a rate based on the information available to him.Conclusion:The Privy Council held that the Income-tax Officer is not required to conduct a quasi-judicial enquiry before issuing a notice under Section 34. The proper answer to the reference question is that it is enough for the Income-tax Officer to believe in good faith, based on the information he has, that the assessee's profits have escaped assessment or have been assessed at too low a rate. The appeal was allowed, and the High Court's order was set aside. The respondents were ordered to pay the appellant's costs in the proceedings before the High Court and the Privy Council.