1 The Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any 83 6 proceeding under this Act and if he companysiders that any order passed therein by the Income tax Officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, he may, after giving the assessee an opportu nity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such enquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify, including an order enhancing or modifying the assess ment, or cancelling the assessment and directing a fresh assessment.
The assessee on February 1, 1963, protested to the Commissioner against the issue of the numberice and stated that the said numberice was absolutely bad in law, illegal and void.
Debi Pal, R. K. Chaudhuri and B. P. Maheshwari, for the appellant and the Intervener. ,
Appeal from the judgment and order dated December 8, 1964 of the Calcutta High Court in Appeal from Original Order No.
On the same date the assessee filed an application under Art.
Please numbere that numberadjournment of the hearing will be granted.
3.1, therefore, propose to pass such orders thereon as the circumstances of the cases justify after giving you an opportunity of being heard under the powers vested in me under Section 33B of the Income tax Act, 1922.
Narsaraju and R. N. Sachthey, for respondents Nos.
The assessee having obtained a certificate of fitness under Art.
I and 2.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
281 of 1963.
On calling for and examining the records of your case for the assessment years 1952 53, 1953 54, 1954 55, 1955 56, 1956 57, 1957 58, 1958 59, 1959 60 and 1960 61 and other companynected records, I companysider that the orders of assessment passed by the Income tax Officer D Ward, Howrah, on 7th February, 1961, are erroneous in so far as they are prejudicial to the interests of revenue for the following reasons amongst others.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Sikri, J. On January 24, 1963, the Commissioner of Income tax, West Bengal, sent the following numberice to Smt.
Also the said Income tax Officer was number justified in accepting the initial capital, the acquisition and sale of jewellery, the income from business, gift made by you etc.
1421 of 1966.
without any enquiry or evidence whatsoever.
Kalawati Harlalka, appellant before us, hereinafter referred to as the assessee Sub Income tax assessments of 1952 53 to 1960 61.
Enquiries made have revealed that numberbusiness as alleged was carried on from the address declared in the returns.
Assessments erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue Revision of assessments under Section 33B of the Indian Income tax Act 1922 proposal for Notice regarding.
