Case Law Details
Case Name : Badaram B. Mali Vs. Income Tax Officer (ITAT Mumbai)
Related Assessment Year :
Courts :
All ITAT ITAT Mumbai
Sponsored
Gist of decision:
Provisions of s. 124(3) are self-explanatory. No person shall be entitled to call in question the jurisdiction of an AO after the expiry of one month from the date on which he was served with a notice or after the completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier. Undisputedly, assessee did not raise this issue either after the expiry of one month from the date on which he was served with the disputed notice under sub-s. (2) of s. 143 or after the completion of the assessment.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Sponsored
Kindly Refer to
Privacy Policy &
Complete Terms of Use and Disclaimer.
Will Mayavati, like a normal assessee, be taxed on the cash gift received by her during the recent public rally?
The artcle has no relevance at all since there is no supervision at any level whatsoever in the income tax department to ensure that there is documentary evidence of proper service of any notice on the addressee. Hearing notices are mostly typed and sent by ordinary post or through corrupt notice servers or never despatched at all. Only a copy is sent on record and in any case assessment proceedings in 90% of cases of salary or individual cases are taken up in November-one or two notices are shown as sent (never served) and ITOs pass orders by making huge additions and ex parte-and even demand notices are not duly “served”. Credit for TDS also is never given. And in March, the bank a/cs of all these persons are attached, so that these people run to the ITOs and then make the necessary (and huge) payments to get required faforable (and legal) action taken to undo the damage done to remedy the illegal action. It is exactly what was commented by one BIDUP a few days ago in this site. And, as in the higher/highest forums, the ITOs and their bosses also first calculate the toatal tax plus interest plus penalties leviable for this illegal action and charge a minimum of 10% for undoing the damage-the amounts demanded are many times mindboggling and are shared by even the top people for keeping officers in the wet posts, as per the demand of the unions (with Left support, of course). [Refunds of excess tax paid costs separately and the charges are higher.] Ombudsmen do NOT perform, everybody is happy. CBDT knows but is not bothered-nor is it empowered to do anything as all postings and transfers in the department at all levels are auctioned. And the income tax department’s vigilance section postings, like the postings in the trust circles are most costly.
The reasons are clear Any impartial enquiry into the history of transfers and postings at least of class I officers of the IRS in the last 20 years will establish how some officers commute between Bombay and Delhi, or Pune and Bangalore, etc. and even if they are posted out of Delhi, they are transferred back to Delhi in one year whereas there are officers rotting at faraway stations (from hometowns) for decades. All for money only.
The summary is this:there is no sanctity of the law in the IT department and even Ombudsmen and Chief Commissioners do not care about the legal provisions about service of statutory notices.
Instead, I would suggest that you invite aggrived tax payers to upload stories of their agonies at the hands of the IT deptt as well as ITAT and Ombudsman-a useless institution merely to provide post-retirement paid rest, with executive class travels, govt. quarters, freebies of all sorts, free holiday trips, etc., for certain persons.
There is no Income Tax Act now, it os only a money making and black money making machinery (latter for big time business houses, politicians, corrupt officials, film persons, etc.).