SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2005 Supreme(Cal) 344

DILIP KUMAR SETH, SOUMITRA PAL
HILLTOP HOLDINGS INDIA LTD – Appellant
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA - II – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
D.K.SHOME, Debu prasad pal, M.DHARMAVINAYAGAM, MANISHA SEAL

D. K. SETH, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal has been preferred against an order dated 28th July, 2003 passed in Writ Petition No. 446 of 2002 by the learned single Judge. In the writ petition, the initiation of the proceeding under section 263 of the Income Tax Act. 1961 in respect of an order contemplated under section 143 (1) was challenged on the ground that in respect of such an order, section 263 has no manner of application. " (1) The learned single Judge rejected the plea on the ground that if an improper assessment order has been made under section 143 (2), the revenue is lost and the State cannot prefer an appeal against such a decision. If despite mistake having been committed in exercising power under section 143 (2), the Assessing Officer does not exercise its power under section 154, no action in appeal can be taken against it. In order to save revenue from such an eventuality, the legislature has embodied section 263 in the Act, Such a case is definitely prejudicial to the revenue sufficient for invoking section 263 even in respect of an order passed under section 143 (1 ). "

( 2 ) BEFORE we proceed to deal with the matter and examine the law, we may remind ourselves that the p














Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top