1937 (11) TMI 6 - AT - Income Tax

Court Dismisses Application, Affirms Commissioner's Decision. Analysis of Income-tax Act Sections.

Central India Spinning, Weaving and Manufacturing Co., Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, C.P. and U.P.

The court dismissed the application, agreeing with the decision in Venkatachalam Chettiar. It emphasized that the refusal by the Commissioner to review ... - Issues:1. Interpretation of Sections 30, 31, 32, 33, and 66 of the Income-tax Act.2. Application of Section 33 for review of orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner.3. Scope of Section 66(2) regarding the right to refer a matter to the High Court.4. The impact of a Commissioner's refusal to review an order on the assessee.5. The requirement for a point of law to be referred under Section 33.Analysis:The judgment delves into the irregularity in the procedure due to a clerical error in an ex parte application, leading to a discussion on the practice of calling upon the Commissioner of Income-tax to state a case. The court considers whether the Commissioner should be ordered to state a case on a specific point of law, as per the decision in Venkatachalam Chettiar v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras, highlighting the scheme of Sections 30, 31, 32, 33, and 66 of the Income-tax Act. It is noted that the matter in dispute was finally decided by the Assistant Commissioner, with the assessee having rights under Sections 33 and 66.Section 33 empowers the Commissioner to act suo motu and allows for a review of orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner. The judgment discusses the practice of using Section 33 for review applications and the implications of a review being refused, leaving the assessee with the option to refer the matter to the High Court under Section 66. Section 66(2) specifies the conditions under which an order can be referred to the High Court, particularly emphasizing an order under Section 33 enhancing an assessment or prejudicial to the assessee.The judgment further explores the power to require a point of law to be referred, subject to certain provisions, including the limitation that a reference lies from an order under Section 33 only on a question of law arising from that order itself, not from previous orders under Sections 31 or 32. It aligns with the decision in Venkatachalam Chettiar, stating that the assessee is not prejudiced if the Commissioner refuses to review the Assistant Commissioner's order without altering the assessee's position significantly.In conclusion, the court dismisses the application, citing the agreement with the decision in Venkatachalam Chettiar and the lack of alteration in the assessee's position post the Commissioner's review refusal. The judgment also touches upon the requirement for a proper subject matter of reference under Section 66 and notes a letter received by the assessee from the income-tax authorities, which could have invited a reference in the matter. The costs are fixed at Rs. 50, and the application is ultimately dismissed.