COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. BHAGWANT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is reference under S. 256(2) of the INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act). It relates to asst. yr. 1973 -74. The assessee is a lady and was assessed in terms of a scheme formulated buy the CBDT in 1972. The Scheme specifically excluded minors and ladies. Yet, the Income -tax Officer (hereinafter called the ITO) under some misapprehension accepted the assessee's return and assessed her in terms of the Act., Later, the CIT Bihar being of the view that the order of assessment by the ITO was erroneous and was prejudicial to be Revenue revised the assessment by setting aside the order of the ITO under S. 263(1) of the Act. The assessee being aggrieved by the order of the CIT ordering reassessment in terms of S. 143 of the Act filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed it and set aside the order of the CIT. The Tribunal held that the Scheme applied to ladies and minors as well. It also held that prope enquiry had been made. The Tribunal further held that the order of the CIT was based on surmises and conjectures inasmuch as no prejudice had been shown to the Revenue. The Revenue being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal applied for a reference to this Court in terms of S. 256(1) of the Act. The application for reference by the Tribunal having failed, the CIT, Bihar moved this Court under S. 256(2) of the Act. This Court called for the following three questions to be answered by this Court. The questions thus falling for our consideration are as follows :

(2.) THE question falling for our consideration are concluded by the decisions of this Court in CIT vs. Pushpa Devi (1986) 56 CTR (Pat) 251 : (1987) 164 ITR 639 (Pat) and CIT vs. Rambha Devi (1987) 59 CTR (Pat) 1: (1987) 164 ITR 658 (Pat) in which we held that the Scheme did not apply to ladies and minors. We also held that no enquiry in terms of S. 143 of the Act had been effected by the ITO. We also held that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT was fully justified in cancelling the order of assessment passed by the ITO.