Just a moment...
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 assessee was given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before the Commissioner revised the assessments under section 33B of the Income-tax Act, 1922, and whether the service of notice by affixation or by the later registered notice satisfied the statutory requirement.
Analysis: The revisional power under section 33B could be exercised only after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Service at the address disclosed in the returns had to comply with the prescribed procedure, and mere attempted contact followed by affixation was not enough unless the conditions for substituted service were shown to exist. The serving officer's report did not establish that the assessee could not be found after due diligence, nor did it show the necessary enquiries regarding personal service, agent, or other authorised recipient. The subsequent notice served at a distant place allowed only one day to appear, which was plainly insufficient in the circumstances.
Conclusion: The assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity to show cause, and the revisional order could not stand.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded and the order of revision was quashed.
Ratio Decidendi: A revisional order under section 33B is invalid unless the assessee is afforded a real and lawful opportunity of being heard, and substituted or affixation service must strictly satisfy the governing procedural requirements.