TMI Blog1966 (11) TMI 4X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (s) : R. S. PATHAK. JUDGMENT The petitioner is a partnership firm which carries on business principally in footwear. It filed its return of income for the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1960-61. The Income-tax Officer made an assessment order on March 31, 1965, under section 23(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roversy between the parties as to the validity of the proceedings for enhancing the assessment. The contention of the petitioner that the proceedings for enhancement, including the notice dated April 23, 1966, are without jurisdiction rests on a number of grounds. Upon consideration of the matter, it appears to me unnecessary to enter into the controversy, because it seems to me that the Appellate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sidered to be an assessment order made under the Act of 1922, and that is exactly what the assessment order declares. Now there is nothing in section 297 of the Act of 1961 to indicate whether an appeal against such assessment is to be instituted under the Act of 1922 or the Act of 1961. To remove this difficulty, the Central Government made the Income-tax (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1962, pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... institution by the petitioner, and that will include the proceedings initiated by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner for enhancement of the assessment. The jurisdiction to enhance the assessment flows from section 31(3)(a) of the Act of 1922 and before enhancing the assessment the first proviso to section 31(3) requires the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to afford a reasonable opportunity to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
