SWATANTER KUMAR, MADAN B.LOKUR
REMFRY AND SONS – Appellant
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VIII, NEW DELHI – Respondent
( 1 ) THIS Income Tax reference was returned unanswered vide order of the court dated 5th August, 2004 because nobody was present on behalf of the appellant on that date. The assessee filed an application being CM No. 2034/2005, for recalling of the order dated 5th August, 2004, for restoration of the reference to the file and for hearing of the matter on merits in accordance with law. This application was allowed by the Court vide a detailed order dated 14th February, 2005 vide which order dated 5th August, 2004 was recalled and we directed the matter to be heard on merits.
( 2 ) ON that very day, the matter was heard on merits and reserved for orders.
( 3 ) THE controversy in the present reference revolves around a fine distinction between the expressions illegality , irregularity , procedural irregularity , and whether it is curable or should proved fatal to the case of the assessee?
( 4 ) BEFORE we proceed to determine the various legal facets of this aspect of law, it would be appropriate for us to refer to facts giving rise to the present reference.
( 5 ) THE assessee in the relevant assessment year 1978-79 was a partnership concern, and was assessed for
REFERRED TO : Agricultural Income Tax vs. Keshav Chandra
Jai Manohar Lal vs. National Printing Supply
Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Calcutta Discount Company Ltd.
India Vs. Naresh Kumar and Anr.
Hanamanthappa and Anr Vs. Chandrashekharappa and Ors.
L.J. Leach and Co. Ltd. Vs. Jardine Skinner and Co.
Sheonath Singh Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.