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 could rectify the partner's assessment under section 155 on the basis of the firm's assessed income while the firm's settlement application was pending before the Settlement Commission.
Analysis: The statutory scheme of sections 245C and 245F confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Settlement Commission only in relation to the case of the assessee who makes the application. The firm and the partner are separate assessable entities. Since the settlement application was filed by the firm and not by the partner, the pendency of the firm's proceedings did not divest the Income-tax Officer of jurisdiction in the partner's assessment. The assessment could therefore be rectified on the basis of the firm's assessed income, with consequential rectification available later if the firm's income was modified by the Settlement Commission.
Conclusion: The rectification under section 155 was valid and the assessee's challenge failed.
Ratio Decidendi: Exclusive jurisdiction of the Settlement Commission arises only for the case of the applicant before it, and pendency of settlement proceedings by a separate assessable entity does not bar rectification of another assessee's assessment on the basis of the assessed income then available.