2000 PLP 3643 (PTD)
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus HANSA AGENCIES (PRIVATE) LIMITED
| Citation | 2000 PLP 3643 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | 238 I T R 206 |
| Bench Members | Ashok Bhan and N. K. Agrawal, JJ |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus HANSA AGENCIES (PRIVATE) LIMITED |
| Primary Law | Income-tax |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000 PLP 3643 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Income-tax as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2000 PLP 3643 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the 238 I T R 206 bench comprising: Ashok Bhan and N. K. Agrawal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2000 PLP 3643 (PTD) (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus HANSA AGENCIES (PRIVATE) LIMITED). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- B.S. Gupta Senior Advocate with Sanjay Bansal for the Assessee.
Headnotes / Summary
Draft assessment order
Limitation--Draft assessment order alongwith objections submitted on 6-1.2-1983, directions received on 11-5-1984, and assessment made on 26-5-1984
Assessment was not barred by limitation
Income Tax Act, 1961, S. 144B. A return was filed for the assessment year 1981-82, declaring income of Rs.15,96,
650. A revised return was filed showing income of Rs.11,50,
866. The Income-tax Officer proposed variation in the income of the assessee exceeding Rs.1,00,000 and, therefore, he followed the procedure laid down in section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. A draft of the assessment order was forwarded by the Income-tax Officer to the assessee on November 22, 1983. The objections were filed by the assessee on December 2, 1993. A copy of the draft assessment order along with the copy of the objections were sent to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on December 6, 1983. The directions were received from the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on May 11, 1984. Assessment was made on. May 26; 1984. On the question whether - the assessment was barred by limitation: Held, that subsection (7) of section 144B was not attracted and the procedure, laid down in that section, was rightly followed as the Income-tax Officer, having concurrent jurisdiction with the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under section 125A of the Act, proposed to make variation in the income of the assessee exceeding Rs.1,00,
000. The assessment was not barred by limitation. CIT v. Gheru Lal Bal Chand (1998) 233 ITR 82 (P&H) fol. B.S. Gupta Senior Advocate with Sanjay Bansal for the Assessee.
Judgment & Decree
N.K. AGRAWAL, J.
The following question has been referred to this Court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (for short, "the Tribunal") under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, "the Act"): "Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that order made under section 144B of the Income-tax Act was bad in law and the assessment made on May 2.6, 1984, is barred by limitation?" The assessee-company derived income from the export of handicrafts, brassware, etc. A return was filed, for the assessment year 1981-82, declaring income of Rs.15,96,
650. Revised return was filed showing income of Rs.11,50,
866. The Income-tax Office proposed variation in the income of the assessee exceeding Rs.1,00,000 and, therefore, he followed the procedure laid down in section 144B of the Act. Draft of the assessment order was forwarded by the Income-tax Officer to the assessee on November 22, 1983. The objections were filed by the assessee on December 2, 1983. A copy of the draft assessment order alongwith the company of the, objections were sent to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on December 6, 1983. The directions were received from the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on May 11, 1984. Assessment was made by the Income-tax Officer on an income of Rs.16,09,
298. The assessee challenged the assessment on the ground that the Income-tax Officer wrongly followed the procedure laid down in section 144B of the Act and, therefore, the extended period of limitation was not available for completing the assessment. It was claimed that the Income tax Officer had concurrent jurisdiction alongwith the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under section 125A of the Act and, therefore, in the light of subsection (7) of section 144B, the procedure laid down in section 144B was not required to be followed. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee and annul the assessment order on the "ground that section 144E had been wrongly applied by the Income-tax Officer and, therefore, the extended period of limitation was not available for completing the assessment. It was held by the Tribunal that subsection (7) of section -144B did not require the, Income-tax Officer to follow the procedure laid down in that section if the Income-tax officer had concurrent jurisdiction together with the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner concerned. A similar question has been examined by this Court in Income-tax Reference No.63 of 1985
CIT v. Gheru Lal Bal Chand (1998) 233 ITR 82, decided on September 25, 1997, and it has been held that subsection (7) of section 144B was not attracted and the procedure laid down in that section, was rightly followed as the Income-tax Officer, having concurrent jurisdiction with the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under section 125A of the Act, proposed to make variation in the income of the assessee exceeding Rs.1,00,
000. Following the said view, the question is answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Department and against the assessee. M.B.A./87/FC Reference answered.