TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1974 (8) TMI 9
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is a case of reopening of certain orders passed by the, Commissioner of Income-tax under section 33B of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. in view of the fact that only one contention was urged before us, we need not set out the other facts leading up to the making of the impugned order in detail in this reference. The material facts so far as this question is concerned appear to be that the impugned assessment orders were passed on the 2nd September, 1963. There was a notice dated the 8th August, 1963, issued by the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 33T3 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, in respect of the assessment years 1958-59 to 1961-62. The said notice was issued by one Shri F. H. Vallibhoy who was then the Commissioner having ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Shri Palekar should have himself called for the records, examined the Position himself and given a fresh notice if necessary. This contention appears in paragraph 10 at page 42 of the order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal was unable to accept the said contention. It was, further, contended that in view of the provisions of section 5(7C) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 as it stood at the relevant time, there had been no compliance with the said provisions and requirements enjoined by the said section and as such the impugned order was not legal. Section 5(7C) is as follows : " (7C). Whenever in respect of any proceeding under this Act an income-tax authority ceases to exercise jurisdiction and is succeeded by another who has and exercis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e matter afresh. Therefore, strictly speaking, the Tribunal had no opportunity to deal with this contention. This contention would involve examination of certain facts as to the consequence of non-hearing which were not raised before the Tribunal and as such it is not proper for us to entertain this objection. Even, however, assuming that the assessee is allowed to agitate this question as another aspect of the question, we are unable to accept the contention urged on behalf of the assessee. As we mentioned before, the impugned order was passed on the 2nd September, 1963 ; the assessment order in respect of which the order under section33B had been passed was passed on the 4th September, 1961. Therefore, under the operation of the relevant ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that the assessee wanted an extension or adjournment for three days for "furnishing evidence" which would conclusively prove that the suspicion on which the Commissioner was purporting to act was incorrect. Therefore, the assessee was not asking for any hearing personally before the officer on the 29th August, 1963, when he made the application or replied to the show-cause notice for an opportunity to adduce additional evidence. It is not the case here that he had additional evidence on the 4th September, 1963. As the Tribunal rightly pointed out that it was to prolong or to delay the passing of the impugned order so that the making of the order could be frustrated in view of the requirements of the section that the assessee wanted time. C....