<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1974 (8) TMI 9 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39061</link>
    <description>Section 5(7C) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 permits a succeeding income-tax authority to continue a pending proceeding from the stage left by the predecessor, while preserving an assessee&#039;s right to seek reopening or rehearing. On the facts, the assessee did not clearly request a fresh personal hearing before the successor Commissioner, but sought only a short adjournment to produce further evidence. The challenge on absence of a fresh hearing was also not raised in the same form before the Tribunal. The Court held that the section 33B order was not vitiated by non-compliance with section 5(7C), and the issue was answered in favour of the Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 Aug 1974 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 12 Apr 2010 12:44:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=77607" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1974 (8) TMI 9 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39061</link>
      <description>Section 5(7C) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 permits a succeeding income-tax authority to continue a pending proceeding from the stage left by the predecessor, while preserving an assessee&#039;s right to seek reopening or rehearing. On the facts, the assessee did not clearly request a fresh personal hearing before the successor Commissioner, but sought only a short adjournment to produce further evidence. The challenge on absence of a fresh hearing was also not raised in the same form before the Tribunal. The Court held that the section 33B order was not vitiated by non-compliance with section 5(7C), and the issue was answered in favour of the Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Aug 1974 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39061</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>