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 Income-tax Officer could initiate proceedings under section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and disregard an existing order under section 25A recognising the disruption of the Hindu undivided family.
Analysis: Section 34 was held to confer power to reassess escaped income, but not a general power to review or nullify an order made under section 25A. An order under section 25A was treated as effective for subsequent years until it was set aside in accordance with law, ordinarily by resort to section 33B. Permitting the Income-tax Officer to ignore such an order at will would produce anomalous results and deprive the order of finality. The earlier authorities cited did not govern the question because they concerned different facts and did not decide the effect of a subsisting section 25A order on proceedings under section 34.
Conclusion: The Income-tax Officer had no jurisdiction under section 34 to ignore or nullify the subsisting section 25A order, and the question was answered in the negative, in favour of the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: A reassessment provision cannot be used as a substitute for review of a subsisting order under section 25A, and such an order remains operative for later years until lawfully set aside.