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, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessment made under Section 34 of the Income-tax Act was valid.
Analysis: Section 34 could be invoked only where income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. The assessee had already filed a return, and the assessment proceedings were still pending. In such a situation, the proper course for the department was to proceed with assessment on the return under the regular assessment provisions. Mere non-completion of assessment did not amount to escapement of income within the meaning of Section 34. The authorities relied upon by the department were distinguished on the ground that they involved either no valid assessment or a completed assessment which had failed for a legal defect, unlike the present case where a return had been filed and remained to be dealt with.
Conclusion: Section 34 was not validly invoked. The assessment made thereunder was without jurisdiction and was set aside in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The reference was answered against the department, and the assessee succeeded with costs.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a return has already been filed and assessment proceedings are still pending, the income cannot be treated as having escaped assessment so as to confer jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Income-tax Act.