The expression "proceedings for the assessment" in Section 297(2)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 has a comprehensive meaning and includes proceedings under Section 33B of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.

Headnote:
INCOME TAX - Assessment - Revision of assessment - Power of Commissioner to revise Income-tax Officer's orders - Proceedings for assessment - Meaning of - Whether includes proceedings under Section 33B of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 - Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), Sec. 33B - Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), Secs. 297(2)(a), 298, 6 - General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897), Sec. 6 - Income-tax (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1962, Cls. 2, 3, 4.
Fact of the Case:

The Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal, issued a notice to the assessee, proposing to revise the assessment orders passed by the Income-tax Officer under Section 33B of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The assessee filed a petition in the High Court, challenging the validity of the notice on the ground that the Commissioner had no power to initiate the proceedings under Section 33B of the 1922 Act after the repeal of the said Act by the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Finding of the Court:

The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the expression "proceedings for the assessment" in Section 297(2)(a) of the 1961 Act had a comprehensive meaning and included proceedings under Section 33B of the 1922 Act. The High Court also held that Section 6 of the General Clauses Act would not apply because Section 297(2) evidenced an intention to the contrary.
Issues: Whether the expression "proceedings for the assessment" in Section 297(2)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 includes proceedings under Section 33B of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the expression "proceedings for the assessment" in Section 297(2)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 has a comprehensive meaning and includes proceedings under Section 33B of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The Court observed that the word "assessment" can bear a very comprehensive meaning, it can comprehend the whole procedure for ascertaining and imposing liability upon the tax-payer. The Court also held that Section 6 of the General Clauses Act would not apply because Section 297(2) evidences an intention to the contrary.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the validity of the notice issued by the Commissioner of Income-tax.

Judgement

SIKRI, J.:- On January 24, 1963, the Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal, sent the following notice to Smt. Kalawati Harlalka, appellant before us, hereinafter referred to as the assessee :

"Sub: Income-tax assessments of 1952-53 to 1960-61. Assessments erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue - Revision of assessments under Sec. 33B of the Indian Income-tax Act 1922- proposal for- Notice. regarding

"On calling for and examining the records of your case for the assessment years 1952-53, 1953-54, 1954-55, 1855-56, 1956-57, 1957-58, 1958-59, 1959-60 and 1960-61 and other connected records, I consider that the orders of assessment passed by the Incometax Officer D Ward, Howrah, on 7th February, 1961, are erroneous in so far as they are prejudicial to the interest of revenue for the following reasons amongst others.

2. Enquiries made have revealed that no business as alleged was carried on from the address declared in the return. Also the said Income-tax Officer was not justified in accepting the initial capital, the acquisition and sale of jewellery, the income from business, gift made by you etc. without any enquiry or evidence whatsoever.

3. I, therefore, propose to pass such orders thereon as the circumstances of the cases justify after giving you an opportunity of being heard under the powers vested in me under Section 33B of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The cases will be heard at 11 a m. on 1st February, 1963 at my above office when you are requested to produce the necessary evidence in support of your contentions. Objections in writing accompanied by necessary evidence, if any, received on or before the appointment for personal hearing will also be duly considered.

Please note that no adjournment of the hearing will be granted."

The assessee on February 1,1963, protested to the Commissioner against the issue of the notice and stated that the said notice was absolutely bad in law, illegal and void. On the same date the assessee filed an application under Article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court at Calcutta, inter alia praying that the said notice, dated January 24, 1963, be quashed or set aside and the Commissioner of Income-tax be restrained from giving effect to the said notice. The petition was heard by Banerjee, J., and three points were urged before him:

(1) That the Income-tax Act, 1922 - hereinafter referred to as the 1922 Act - having been repealed by Income-tax Act, 1961- hereinafter referred to as the 1961 Act - which came into force on April 1, l962, the Commissioner of Income-tax had no power, authority or jurisdiction to initiate the proceedings under Section 33B of the 1922 Act;

(2) Section 6 of the General Clauses Act in no way authorises the initiation of the said proceedings inasmuch as no steps were taken in respect thereof when the 1922 Act was in force and/or prior to its repeal; and

(3) The powers under Section 298 of the 1961 Act can only be exercised in respect of the matters dealt with by Section 287 of the 1961 Act which does not deal with proceedings under Section 33B of the 1922 Act.

(2) In order to appreciate the grounds and the findings of the learned Judge, it is necessary to set out relevant statutory provisions.

"Section 33B (1922 Act). Power of Commissioner to revise Income - tax Officer s orders. - (1) The Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act and if he considers that any order passed therein by the Income-tax Officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, he may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such enquiry- as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify, including an order enhancing or modifying the assessment, or cancelling the assessment and directing a fresh assessment.

(2) No order shall be made under subsection (1)

(a) to revise an order of re-assessment made under the provisions o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document