Skip to content


Pt. Lashkariram Vs. Income-tax Officer. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case NumberI. T. APPEAL NO. 662 (ALL.) OF 1982 [ASSESSMENT YEAR 1977-78]
Reported in[1986]17ITD994(NULL)
AppellantPt. Lashkariram
Respondentincome-tax Officer.
Excerpt:
head note: income tax revision under s. 263--erroneous and prejudicial - - the commissioner was, therefore, right in holding that there was nothing on the record to show that the income tax officer had applied his mind to ascertain the extent of investment made in the purchase of chassic for the new truck as well as the expenditure incurred in the construction of the body thereof......about scrutiny of investment or about sources of deposits in assessee's bank account or about correctness of sale price as declared, commissioner was justified in setting it aside.held:the assessment order was very brief and could not be said to be a speaking order. the commissioner was, therefore, right in holding that there was nothing on the record to show that the income tax officer had applied his mind to ascertain the extent of investment made in the purchase of chassic for the new truck as well as the expenditure incurred in the construction of the body thereof. in the assessment order, no mention was also made whether penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were to be initiated. the revisional order was, therefore, justified.application:also to current assessment.....
Judgment:
ORDER

--Non-speaking order.

Ratio:

Where assessing officer's order was very brief and did not contain detailed discussion about scrutiny of investment or about sources of deposits in assessee's bank account or about correctness of sale price as declared, Commissioner was justified in setting it aside.

Held:

The assessment order was very brief and could not be said to be a speaking order. The Commissioner was, therefore, right in holding that there was nothing on the record to show that the Income Tax Officer had applied his mind to ascertain the extent of investment made in the purchase of chassic for the new truck as well as the expenditure incurred in the construction of the body thereof. In the assessment order, no mention was also made whether penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were to be initiated. The revisional order was, therefore, justified.

Application:

Also to current assessment years.

Income Tax Act 1961 s.263


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //