COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Vs. SURI SONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE following question has been referred to this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (for short "the Tribunal") under Section 256 (1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :

(2.) THE assessee-firm derived income from the export of handicrafts, brasswares, etc. A return was filed for the assessment year 1981-82, showing income at Rs. 18,48,505. The revised return was filed thereafter, showing income at Rs. 17,92,190. The Income-tax Officer proposed variation in the assessee's income exceeding Rs. 1,00,000 and, therefore, he followed the procedure laid down in Section 144b of the Act. The draft assessment order was sent by the Income-tax Officer to the assessee on November 22, 1983. Objections were filed by the assessee on December 2, 1983. A copy of the draft assessment order along with the objections was sent to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on December 6, 1983. Directions from the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner were received on May 17, 1984. Assessment was framed by the Income-tax Officer on an income of Rs. 19,16,430 on May 28, 1984.

(3.) THE Tribunal agreed with the assessee and annulled the assessment order on the ground that Section 144b had been wrongly applied by the Income-tax Officer and, therefore, the extended period of limitation was not available for completing the assessment. It was held by the Tribunal that Sub-section (7) of Section 144b did not require the Income-tax Officer to follow the procedure laid down in that section if the Income-tax Officer had concurrent jurisdiction together with the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner concerned.