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 an order under section 23A of the Income-tax Act, 1922 is an assessment order governed by the four-year limitation in section 34(3), so that proceedings initiated beyond that period are barred by time.
Analysis: The expression "assessment" in the Income-tax Act is context-dependent and may bear different meanings. The scheme and object of section 23A show that it is enacted to prevent evasion of tax by controlling the distribution of corporate profits and to penalise failure to distribute the statutory percentage of dividends. The provision does not itself assess income in the ordinary sense; it operates as a punitive machinery provision aimed at contumacious conduct. The court distinguished assessment proceedings, which bring income to tax, from penal provisions that facilitate enforcement of tax liability. The references in section 35(7) and section 35(8) also indicated that an order under section 23A may be made subsequent to assessment or reassessment proceedings and is not controlled by section 34(3).
Conclusion: An order under section 23A is penal in nature and is not an order of assessment within section 34(3); therefore, the limitation of four years does not apply and the objection of bar of time fails, against the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: A provision intended to prevent tax evasion by imposing punitive consequences for failure to distribute profits is not an assessment provision for the purpose of statutory limitation on assessment orders.