JOSEPH KURUVILLA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the instance of the assessee, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (for short "the Tribunal") has referred the following two questions of law for the decision of this court:

(2.) THE applicant is an assessee to income-tax, We are concerned with the assessment year 1975-76. He filed the return on November 6, 1975, showing nil income. THE Income-tax Officer completed the assessment on March 18, 1980, on a total income of Rs. 1,83,450. THE income comprised entirely of capital gains. In the appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the assessee took up the plea that the variation in the returned income (which was nil) and the assessed income, Rs. 1,83,450, was more than Rs. 1,00,000, and, therefore, the Income-tax Officer was obliged to follow the procedure laid down by Section 144B of the Income-tax Act. He should have issued a draft assessment order to the assessee and after receiving the objections of the assessee, if any, he should have referred the matter to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner for getting direction for completion of the assessment. This plea was accepted by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). He held that Section 144B(1) applies to the instant case. It was found that the said provision was not complied with. He, therefore, set aside the assessment and directed the Income-tax Officer to complete the assessment along the lines indicated by him in his order.

(3.) IN the light of the above, our answer to question No. (1) referred to us is in the affirmative, against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. Our answer to question No. (2) is also in the affirmative, against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.