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 Income-tax Officer was justified in passing a second order under section 23A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 after the assessee's assessment had been finally adjusted in appeal.
Analysis: Section 23A was treated as a penal provision and was read as authorising the Income-tax Officer to make only one order thereunder. The absence of any express provision in section 23A permitting successive proceedings, unlike the express reopening mechanism found in section 34, indicated that repeated action under the same section was not intended. Any prejudice to the Revenue arising from an order under section 23A could be addressed only by the Commissioner under section 33B, not by the Income-tax Officer by issuing another order under the same provision.
Conclusion: The second order under section 23A was not sustainable, and the question was answered in the affirmative in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The reference was answered against the Revenue and the assessee succeeded on the validity of the second section 23A order.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a taxing provision authorises the Income-tax Officer to make an order and contains no express power for repeated action, a second order cannot be sustained by implication; the statute must be applied according to its express terms.