9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved: Determination of whether the Tribunal erred in annulling assessments due to violation of rules of natural justice.
Summary: The appeals involved a common question of law and fact, concerning the annulment of assessments by the Tribunal based on the Assessing Officer's failure to conduct relevant inquiries and provide assessees with all material against them. The assessees had filed returns for the assessment year 1993-94, including agricultural income, which was disputed by the Assessing Officer. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) set aside the assessment order, directing the Assessing Officer to make further inquiries. The Tribunal, following its earlier judgments for similar defects in prior years, annulled the assessments, leading to the appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act. The Department contended that irregularities do not warrant annulment of assessments unless jurisdiction is lacking, citing legal precedents. On the other hand, the assessees argued that annulment was necessary for violations of natural justice, supported by case law. The High Court found merit in the appeal, emphasizing the distinction between lack of jurisdiction and irregular exercise of authority. It held that the Assessing Officer's omission did not affect jurisdiction, and the Tribunal erred in annulling the assessments. The court clarified that annulment has different consequences from setting aside an assessment order, and upheld the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) decision to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer. In conclusion, the High Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the Tribunal's judgment and ruling in favor of the Department. The court rejected the contention that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) should not have remanded the matter, stating that the order was in accordance with the law. This judgment clarifies the distinction between lack of jurisdiction and irregular exercise of authority, emphasizing that violations of natural justice affect the legality of an order but not the jurisdiction. The court's decision highlights the importance of following procedural fairness in assessment proceedings.
|
