TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court upholds Income-tax Officer's authority under section 34 for escaped income from partnership firm</h1> <h3>Koppuravari Venkateswarlu Versus Ii Additional Income Tax Officer</h3> The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Income-tax Officer's authority to proceed under section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act against the ... - Issues:1. Whether the Income-tax Officer can proceed under section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act against the petitioner for escaped income from a partnership firm.2. Interpretation of section 34 and section 35 of the Indian Income-tax Act in the context of rectification of income assessment.3. Applicability of section 35(5) in cases of completed assessments before 1st April, 1952.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1:The petitioner sought a writ of prohibition against the Income-tax Officer from taking action under section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act for escaped income from a partnership firm. The petitioner's income from the firm was provisionally assessed at a lower amount initially, but upon completion of the firm's assessment, it was found to be significantly higher. The Income-tax Officer issued a notice under section 22(2) read with section 34(1)(b) for a fresh return, which the petitioner objected to. The court was tasked with determining whether the Income-tax Officer could proceed under section 34 in this case.Issue 2:The court examined the historical practice of deferring the determination of a partner's income from a firm until after the firm's assessment was completed. Section 34 of the Act provides for rectification of mistakes, while section 35 was previously used for such cases. However, section 35(5) was inserted to address cases where a partner's share in the firm's profit or loss was not included or was incorrect in the assessment. The court analyzed the applicability of the amended section 35(5) and the interpretation of section 34 in light of the specific circumstances of the case.Issue 3:A divisional Bench ruling clarified that section 35(5) was not retrospective and came into force on 1st April, 1952. As the petitioner's assessment was completed before this date, the Income-tax Officer invoked section 34 for further action. The court discussed the requirements of section 34(1)(b) and distinguished it from the previous version, emphasizing the need for the Officer to have reason to believe that income had escaped assessment based on information in his possession. The court concluded that section 35(5) did not apply to assessments completed before 1st April, 1952, and upheld the Income-tax Officer's authority to proceed under section 34 in the petitioner's case.In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ petition, finding no merit in the petitioner's contentions. The judgment highlighted the distinction between the old and new provisions of the Income-tax Act, emphasizing the Officer's authority to act under section 34 based on valid reasons to believe income had escaped assessment, despite the availability of section 35(5) for similar situations.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
