TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1967 (5) TMI 17
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ay the Income-tax Officer issued a notice to the firm under sub-section (4) of section 22 of the Act for filing certain documents. The Income-tax Officer was informed that the firm was not in a position to file all the documents mentioned in the notice under section 22(4). The Income-tax Officer took up the position that the firm had failed to comply with the notice served upon it under section 22(4). On November 30, 1961, an assessment order was passed under section 23 (4) of the Act on the footing that the firm had failed to comply with the notice under section 22(4) of the Act. A notice of demand was also issued on that basis. The firm filed in this court a writ petition challenging the assessment order dated November 30, 1961, and the d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ny person who has made a return under sub-section (1) or upon whom a notice has been served under sub-section (2) a notice requiring him, on a date to be therein specified, to produce. . . . such accounts or documents as the Income-tax Officer may require. . . . " Section 23 of the Act provides for assessment. Sub-section (4) of that section states : " If any person fails to make the return required by any notice given under sub-section (2) of section 22. . . . or fails to comply with all the terms of a notice issued under sub-section (4) of the same section. . . the Income-tax Officer shall make the assessment to the best of his judgment and determine the sum payable by the assessee on the basis of such assessment. . . " In the pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....id not disclose the receipt of taxable income, was a " return " within section 22(1) on which assessment proceedings could be validly taken and therefore the assessment was valid. The question referred to the High Court in that case was whether the assessment of Rs. 30,000 for the assessment year 1947-48 was valid. It was in that connection that the court remarked that there was a return within section 22(1) of the Act. The court was not called upon to decide whether action could be taken under section 22(4) of the Act. In R. P. Kandaswami v. Commissioner of Income-tax Madras, it was held that, where in respect of any year an assessee has voluntarily submitted his returns, the Income-tax Officer cannot ignore the returns and initiate pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urnish a supplementary return. It is difficult to accept the contention that a supplementary return is also under sub-section (1). The supplementary return is clearly under sub-section (3) of section 22. The plan of section 22 suggests that returns may be filed under three separate provisions contained under section 22 of the Act. There should be no difficulty in treating returns filed under sub-section (3) as a distinct class. We notice that, although sub-sections (1) and (2) are mentioned in sub-section (4) of section 22, there is no mention of sub-section (3) there. It is not clear why sub-section (3) was not expressly mentioned in sub-section (4). The learned single judge has suggested that the legislature might have thought it fit t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....... " Mr. Gulati urged that, if the interpretation placed on section 22(4) by the learned single judge is accepted, the provision would be unworkable. We may point out that section 22(4) is not the only provision in the Act enabling the Income-tax Officer to examine the relevant documents. Sub-section (3) of section 23 provides for an enquiry. During such an enquiry the Income-tax Officer may insist on examing such evidence as he way require on specific points. Section 37 of the Act confers wide powers upon the income-tax authorities. Under section 37 the Income-tax Officer may compel the production of books of account and other relevant documents. It cannot, therefore, be said that, if action is not taken under the special provision of ....