COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. GURU AMARJIT SINGH

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, "quot"the Act"quot") :

(2.) Return was filed by the assessee for the asst. yr. 1981-82, declaring income of Rs. 36,110. The ITO proposed variation in the assessees income for more than Rs. 1,00,000 and, therefore, he invoked s. 144B of the Act, Draft of the proposed assessment order was forwarded by the ITO to the assessee under s. 144B(1) on 27th March, 1984. The assessee filed objections on 4th April, 1984. Copy of the draft assessment order along with the objections was forwarded by the ITO to the IAC. Directions from the IAC were received 1984 (sic). Assessment was framed by the ITO on an income of Rs. 1,99,340 on 6th August, 1984.

(3.) The assessee challenged the assessment on the ground that the ITO wrongly followed the procedure laid down in s. 144B of the Act and, therefore, the extended period of limitation was not available for completing the assessment. It was claimed that the ITO had concurrent jurisdiction along with the IAC under s. 125A of the Act and, therefore, in the light of sub-s. (7) of s. 144B, the procedure laid down in s. 144B was not required to be followed.