REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

GI VI ENTERPRISE Appellant

V/S

ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

MYERS V. BETHLEHEM SHIPBUILDING CORPORATION [REFERRED]
C.A. ABRAHAM V. INCOME TAX OFFICER [REFERRED]
LALJI HARIDAS V. R. H. BHATT. [REFERRED]
CHAMPALAL BINANI V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX [REFERRED]
HARI VISHNU KAMATH VS. AHMAD ISHAQUE [REFERRED]
CALCUTTA DISCOUNT COMPANY LIMITED VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER COMPANIES DISTRICT I CALCUTTA [REFERRED]
UJJAM BAI VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED]
STANDARD MILLS COMPANY LIMITED VS. M RAMALINGAM [REFERRED]
MADHYA PRADESH INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER SPECIAL INVESTIGATION CIRCLE B NAGPUR [REFERRED]
RAMPYARI DEVI SARAOGI VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX WEST BENGAL [REFERRED]
GITA DEVI AGGARWAL VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX WEST BENGAL AND OHERS [REFERRED]
L HIRDAY NARAIN VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER BAREILLY [REFERRED]
JOHARMAL MURLIDHAR AND CO VS. AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX OFFICER ASSAM [REFERRED]
SHEONATHSINGH VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CALCUTTA [REFERRED]
TARA DEVI AGGARWAL VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX WEST BENGAL CALCUTTA [REFERRED]
MATTULAL VS. RADHE LAL [REFERRED]
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. DELHI ADMINISTRATION [REFERRED]
PARKAR J S VS. PALEKAR V B [REFERRED]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An important question repeatedly raised before the Admission Benches of the High Courts is whether and if so when a writ petition challenging the validity of an order of a statutory authority should be entertained even though a statutory appeal is provided against the said order but is not availed of by the petitioner.

(2.) This and the connected writ petition (civil writ 781 of 1974) each challenges the validity of an order of the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cancelling the order of assessment made by the Income-Tax Officer and asking the Income Tax Officer to make a fresh assessment. These orders were appealable under section 253 of the said Act to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal but neither have they been appealed against nor has any explanation been given in the writ petitions as to why the petitioners chose not to file appeals but to file these writ petitions.

(3.) The challenge to the impugned orders is two-fold, namely, (a) that the conditions to be fulfilled before the Additional Commissioner could assume jurisdiction under section 263 to revise the orders of the Income Tax Officer were not fulfilled; and (b) that on merits the orders of the Income Tax Officers were correct and should not have been interfered with by the Additional Commissioner.

Click here to view full judgment.

GEE VEE ENTERPRISE Vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF NICOME TAX

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address