TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (2) TMI 35
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onstruction of roads and bridges. The assessment years involved are 1976-77 to 1981-82. The assessments were completed under section 143(3) read with section 148. Thereafter a notice under section 263 of the Act was issued by the Commissioner of Income-tax on December 24, 1982, to revise the assessment orders made by the Assessing Officer. For revising the assessment order, the commissioner of Income-tax was of the view that: (a) the assessment for the assessment year 1976-77 should be made by the Income-tax Officer, Special Survey Circle, and not by the Income-tax Officer, B-Ward, and (b) the assessment orders were made in haste and stereotype fashion. In reply, the assessee submitted that when the Income-tax Officer, B-Ward, has iss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed its findings in para. 5 of the order, which reads as under: "We have heard the rival submissions and considered the various materials that have been placed on record. The Income-tax Officer, B-Ward, started with the assessment for 1979-80 onwards and later on did not assessments 1976-77 onwards as the returns contained the GIR number and, therefore, he was justified in assuming that the assessee was an existing assessee in his ward. The Income-tax Officer, B-Ward, had the jurisdiction to assess contractors cases whose names begin with alphabet 'G'. He could have possibly sent the first year, i.e., 1976-77, to the Special Survey Circle had the GIR numbers were not mentioned on the returns. Having assumed the jurisdiction, he proceeded ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he penal clauses which provide for failure to act as required by the notice. The jurisdiction to assess and the liability to pay the tax, however, are not conditional on the validity of the notice.' In the case of Seth Kanhaiyalal v. CIT [1937] 5 ITR 739 (All), the Income-tax Officer designated himself wrongly and in the following cases the notices contained a small error and it was held that such small error would not invalid the notice or the assessment. 'Tarak Nath Bagchi v. CIT [1946] 14 ITR 319, 323, 324 (Cal) and Dr. R. N. Singha v. Secretary of State for India [1927] 2 ITC 462 (Rang) (s. 139(2)); Lachhman Das Babu Ram v. CIT [1929] 4 ITC 61 (All) (s. 142(1)); Rajmani Devi v. CIT [1937] 5 ITR 631, 639, 640 (All) (s. 143(2)); Mangal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Officer had not complied with the requirement under section 151(2) prior to the issue of the notice and, therefore, it was proper for the Commissioner of Income-tax to set aside the order of that year to be redone. We, therefore, uphold the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax for the sole reason that mandatory requirement of obtaining sanction of the Commissioner of Income-tax prior to issue of notice by placing reliance on the Supreme Court decisions in the case of Johri Lal (HUF) v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 439, where it had been held that if the Income-tax Officer fails to obtain the sanction of the Commissioner of Income-tax, the assessment would be vitiated." The profit rate shown by the assessee and further had been accepted by the In....