DUNCAN AGRO INDUSTRIES LTD Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NOTICE dated June 22, 1979, issued by the respondent authority under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, served on the assessee, the petitioner abovenamed has been impugned before me in this writ petition. The said notice dated June 22, 1979, has been annexed to the writ petition and is appearing at page 54 therein. In the said notice, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Central-II), Calcutta, asked the assessee to show cause as to why the order passed by the Assessing Officer would not be revised under Section 263(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1974-75.

(2.) APPEARING for the petitioner, Dr. Debi Prasad Pal, learned senior counsel, submitted that the assessment order sought to be revised by the Commissioner has been passed under Section 145(3) read with Section 144B of the said Act of 1961. Under Section 144B, if the returned income exceeds Rs. 1,00,000 the matter should be referred by the Assessing Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. In case any objection is received on the draft assessment made by the Assessing Officer, upon hearing the parties, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner is empowered to pass an order under Section 144B(4) of the said Act and such order and/or direction of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner is binding upon the Income-tax Officer by virtue of the provisions of Section 144B(5) of the said Act. Hence, the Commissioner of Income-tax has no power to revise the order passed by the Income-tax Officer in compliance with the direction of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under Section 144B(4) of the said Act. According to Dr. Pal, the direction of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner in the said case is complied with by the Income-tax Officer by virtue of the provisions of Section 144B(5) of the said Act and the Commissioner of Income-tax has no power to revise such order which has been passed in compliance with the direction of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner.

(3.) RELYING on a decision reported in CIT v. Taj Mahal Hotel , Dr. Pal submitted that the expression "shall include" means that such amendment would have prospective effect.