9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Challenge to notices issued under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for assessment years 1976-77 to 1979-80. - Validity of the exercise of power under section 263 by the Commissioner. - Interpretation of the provisions of section 263 of the Act regarding revision of orders prejudicial to Revenue. - Impact of amendments to section 263, especially the Explanation clause. - Consideration of objective factors by the Commissioner for exercising power under section 263. - Legal implications of offering additional income for taxation to avoid adverse publicity. - Request to withdraw the offer of additional income. Detailed Analysis: The judgment involves a challenge to notices issued under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for assessment years 1976-77 to 1979-80. The petitioner, a public limited company, contests the notices issued by the Commissioner, alleging that they were issued with oblique and improper motives, including frustrating pending appeals and overcoming statutory limitations on reopening assessments. The petitioner argues that the materials considered in the notices were already addressed in appeals before the first appellate authority, rendering the exercise of power under section 263 illicit. The judgment delves into the interpretation of section 263 of the Act, which empowers the Commissioner to revise orders prejudicial to Revenue. It establishes that the Commissioner can exercise this power even when an appeal is pending, as the jurisdiction to proceed under section 263 is not dependent on any condition precedent. The judgment cites legal precedents to support the Commissioner's authority to revise assessment orders while appeals are ongoing. The impact of amendments to section 263, particularly the Explanation clause introduced in 1988, is discussed. The court emphasizes that the exercise of power under section 263 is contingent upon the Commissioner fulfilling certain conditions, including examining records and determining if the order by the Assessing Officer is prejudicial to Revenue. The judgment highlights that the Commissioner must drop the proceeding if the materials in question were already considered and adjudicated upon. Additionally, the judgment addresses the petitioner's argument regarding offering additional income for taxation to avoid adverse publicity. The petitioner contends that the offer was made to buy peace and requests to withdraw it, alleging the Revenue's attempt to gain undue advantage. The court refrains from expressing an opinion on this matter, suggesting the petitioner pursue appropriate avenues if entitled in law. In conclusion, the writ applications challenging the notices under section 263 are dismissed, with the court emphasizing that factual disputes can be effectively adjudicated in the Tribunal. The judgment underscores that non-interference does not indicate an opinion on the case's merits, and the petitioner can explore legal options regarding the offer of additional income for taxation.
|
