9911796707
Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be fully migrated on 31-July-2025 at 23:59:59
After this date, all services will be available exclusively on our new platform.
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please let us know
via our feedback form
, with specific details, so we can address them promptly.
Follow us:
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of an application under section 146 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Analysis: The petitioner, a partnership firm, filed a return for the assessment year 1974-75 after an ex parte assessment order was made under section 144 of the Act. The firm requested to set aside the assessment order and reopen the case. The dispute arose when the respondent did not consider the typed application in the trading and profit and loss account as an application under section 146 of the Act. The court examined whether the typewritten application, signed by one partner, could be construed as a valid application under section 146. The court noted that although no prescribed form exists for such an application, the substance and clarity of the request are crucial. The court found that the application, even if not separately signed, was valid as long as the firm claimed to have made it. The respondent's argument that the application was presented before the assessment order was refuted based on the date of receipt of the return, which was March 26, 1975. The court emphasized that substantial compliance with the requirements of section 146 is essential. It held that the officer should have considered the application on its merits, as it was duly made, regardless of any technical deficiencies. The court directed the respondent to review the application found in the trading and profit and loss account annexed to the return within two months and issue a formal order under section 146 of the Act. The court highlighted the importance of focusing on the substance rather than technical errors in applications submitted by untrained individuals, emphasizing that justice must prevail in such matters. In conclusion, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner, directing the respondent to consider the application under section 146 of the Act and make a formal order based on its merits. The court stressed the significance of substantial compliance with legal requirements and the duty of authorities to dispense justice, especially when dealing with applications from untrained individuals.
|
