9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are related to the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Gift-tax to set aside an alleged order of assessment without it being served on the assessee, and the requirement of communication of assessment orders to the concerned party for the validity of such actions. Summary: Jurisdiction to set aside order of assessment: The case involved a reference under section 26 of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 regarding the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Gift-tax to set aside an order of assessment that was not served on the assessee. The facts revolved around a gift made by late Smt. Lilabai Matkar to her daughter and son-in-law, which led to a dispute regarding the valuation of the properties involved. The Commissioner set aside the assessment order passed by the Gift-tax Officer and directed a fresh assessment, which was challenged by the assessee. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, leading to the reference question on the jurisdiction of the Commissioner to set aside the order without it being communicated to the assessee. Communication of assessment order: The contention of the assessee was that the assessment order was non est as it was not served on them, and therefore, the Commissioner's action was without jurisdiction. The argument was supported by legal precedents emphasizing the importance of communication of orders to the concerned party for their validity. The case law cited highlighted the necessity of communicating approval and reasons to the assessee for effective decision-making in tax matters. The principle deduced from these authorities stressed the essential requirement of communicating assessment orders to the assessee for a valid exercise of jurisdiction. Decision: The court held that there was no valid assessment order communicated to the assessee, which would entitle the Commissioner to invoke jurisdiction under section 24(2) of the Act. The absence of communication deprived the Commissioner of the authority to set aside the order and initiate a fresh assessment. The argument that the assessee had acquired knowledge of the assessment order during subsequent proceedings was rejected, emphasizing the importance of formal communication for upholding the rights of the assessee. The decision favored the assessee, ruling against the Department, with no order as to costs. This judgment underscores the significance of proper communication of assessment orders to parties involved in tax matters to ensure the validity of subsequent actions and decisions.
|
