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>Appeal Dismissed Upholding Notice Validity & Interpretation of Rectification</h1> <h3>Chhogmal Agarwalla Versus Income-Tax Officer, A-Ward, Comp. District III (3) Calcutta, And Others</h3> Chhogmal Agarwalla Versus Income-Tax Officer, A-Ward, Comp. District III (3) Calcutta, And Others - [1975] 100 ITR 29 Issues:1. Validity of notice under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. Interpretation of rectification under section 35(5) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.Analysis:1. Validity of notice under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961:The case involved a challenge to a notice issued under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court found that the notice was not properly issued under this section due to the provisions of section 297(2)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court relied on the decision in the case of S. Sankappa v. Income-tax Officer to support this conclusion. The appellant did not contest this finding, and no cross-objection was filed by the respondent challenging it. However, the court deemed the notice valid under section 35 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, based on previous Supreme Court decisions, including the case of L. Hazari Mal Kuthiala v. Income-tax Officer. The appellant did not provide substantial reasons to dispute this conclusion.2. Interpretation of rectification under section 35(5) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922:The main contention in this issue was whether rectification under section 35(5) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, could be applied in a case where the assessment of the firm was conducted under the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court rejected this argument, stating that the assessment of the firm was essentially under the old Act but had to be completed under the new Act as per section 297(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court emphasized that the power to rectify the assessment of a partner is dependent on the proper assessment or reassessment of the firm in accordance with the law. Therefore, in this case, where the firm's assessment was under the new Act, the rectification had to be done under the new Act as well. The court dismissed the appeal challenging this interpretation, highlighting that any contrary view would create an anomaly. The appellant's argument regarding the power under section 298 of the Act to address anomalies was deemed insufficient to alter the court's interpretation.In conclusion, the court dismissed the appeal, upholding the validity of the notice under section 35 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and affirming the interpretation of rectification under section 35(5) in the context of assessments under the Income-tax Act, 1961.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
