1982 PLP 35 (PTD)
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DACCA ZONE, DACCA Versus ALAUDDIN & BROTHERS
| Citation | 1982 PLP 35 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Bangladesh |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DACCA ZONE, DACCA Versus ALAUDDIN & BROTHERS |
| Primary Law | Income Tax Act (XI of 1922)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1982 PLP 35 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Income Tax Act (XI of 1922)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1982 PLP 35 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Bangladesh bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1982 PLP 35 (PTD) (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DACCA ZONE, DACCA Versus ALAUDDIN & BROTHERS). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Habibul Islam Bhuiyan for Appellant.
- Nemo for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 23(1) (3) read with Income‑tax Rules, r. 46 Assessee s self‑assessment enhanced by Income‑tax Officer notwithstanding first proviso to r. 46 not arising and no notice under third proviso to r. 46 being issued to assessee to correct any mistake‑Tribunal, held,,‑ rightly directed Income‑tax Officer to make a fresh assessment under sub section (1) instead of subsection (3) of S. 23 of Act.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD HUSAIN, J.‑This is an application at the instance of the Commissioner of Income‑tax, Dacca Zone, under section 66 of the Income tax Act for a decision of this Court on the question whether the 3rd proviso to Income‑tax Rules, rule 46 empowering the I.‑T. O. to make assessment under section 23(3) of the Income‑tax Act where the return has been filed under self‑assessment procedure. The self‑assessment return filed by the assessee in the present case was modified and the amount of income shown therein was raised by the Income tax Department which was upheld by the Appellate Commissioner. The Tribunal however found that the 3rd proviso to Income‑tax Rule 46 empowering the I.‑T. O. to make assessment under section 23(3) of the Income Tax Act is not applicable unless the Ist proviso to Income‑tax Rules, rule 46 are com plied with. Income‑tax Rules, rule 46 provides for the completion of the as meat by the Income‑tax Officer under section 23(1) of the Income‑tax Act an it has, however, been provided at the 1st instance that where the return filed by the assesses is not verified or is incomplete or is not accompanied by pro documents or if there is any mistake in the computation of the total income the Income‑tax Officer, may require the assesses to comply within a specified date, and thereafter the Income‑tax Officer shall complete the assessment under section 23(1) of the Income‑tax Act. Only upon the failure of an assesses to comply with the aforesaid proviso to rule 46, the 3rd proviso to rule 46 will be applicable which empowers an Income‑tax Officer to make assessment under section 23(3) of the Income‑tax Act. In the present case it has been found by the Tribunal that the 1st proviso to rule 46 as aforesaid did not arise at all and the assessee was never required to correct any mistake before completing the assessment as such, there could not be any invocation of the 3rd proviso to rule
46. In Such circumstances the Tribunal rightly directed the I. T. O. to make a fresh assessment under subsection (1) instead of subsection (3) of section 23 of the Income‑tax Act. The answer to the question raised herein being made in the affirmative. This application is rejected. Prayer for leave to appeal is also refused. SULTAN HOSSAIN KHAN, J. ‑I agree. Application rejected.