COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. SHAM PIARI ANGRISH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE following question has been referred to this Court by the Tribunal under S. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") :

(2.) THE assessee derived income from house property and interest from Bank. Return of income was filed by the assessee in the status of individual for the asst. yr. 1980-81, showing net income of Rs. 39,430. The ITO proposed addition for more than Rs. 1,00,000 and, therefore, proceeded under S. 144B of the Act for completing the assessment. The ITO prepared a draft assessment order and forwarded a copy thereof to the assessee on 28th March, 1983. On receipt of objections from the assessee, the same along with the draft assessment order was submitted to the IAC as required under S. 144B(4). Directions were received from the IAC on 7th Sept., 1983. Assessment was framed on the income of Rs. 1,59,370 on 7th Sept., 1983.

(3.) A similar question has been examined by this Court in IT Ref. No. 63 of 1985 (CIT vs. Gheru Lal Bal Chand [reported at (1998) 144 CTR (P&H) 228], and it has been held that sub-s. (7) of S. 144B was not attracted and the procedure, laid down in that section, was rightly followed as the ITO, having concurrent jurisdiction with the IAC under S. 125A of the Act, proposed to make variation in the income of the assessee exceeding Rs. 1,00,000. Following the said view, the question is answered in the negative i.e., in favour of the Department and against the assessee.