Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Second Income-tax Officer, Madurai, had jurisdiction to assess the petitioner and whether the assessment order dated 19 March 1962 is invalid.
Analysis: The Court examined the statutory scheme under Section 5(7A) and Section 64 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, distinguishing the administrative power to transfer cases (Section 5(7A)) from the substantive right to be assessed by the officer of the place of business or residence (Section 64). The Court considered the facts showing that the assessee's business activities and residence were effectively at Madurai, the Karaikudi officer's communication to the assessee so stating, and the assessee's authorised representative's unequivocal reply consenting to transfer of the file to Madurai. The Court held that these facts established that jurisdiction to assess vested with the Madurai officer irrespective of the mechanics of file transmission or the Commissioner's subsequent intra-city transfer order, and that reference to the Commissioner's order in the assessment did not vitiate the assessment where jurisdiction otherwise existed.
Conclusion: The writ petition is dismissed; the assessment dated 19 March 1962 by the Second Income-tax Officer, Madurai, is valid and within the officer's jurisdiction (decision in favour of the Revenue).