Section 33A(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922

Section 33A(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 — the law in short

What the courts have decided on section 33A(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, in one screen. Read this first; open an entry when you need the facts, the reasoning and the source.

• Dwarka Nath v Income-Tax Officer Supreme CourtHelps taxpayer
  The Commissioner dismissed my revision and the officer will not issue a demand notice so I cannot appeal. Is the revisional order beyond the reach of a writ because it is administrative?
  No. The Supreme Court held that the revisional jurisdiction is prima facie judicial: the order brought before the Commissioner affects the assessee's rights, it is implicit in a revisional power that the parties be heard, and the nature of the jurisdiction carries with it a duty to act judicially. Certiorari therefore lies. And even if the revisional order were administrative, that would not help the Revenue, because the officer's failure to issue the statutory demand notice would still be a failure of a statutory duty, correctable by mandamus. The Court quashed the revisional order and directed the officer to pass an order and issue notice according to law.

Listed strongest first: Supreme Court, then High Court, then Tribunal, then CBDT. Nothing here has yet been read in full by a chartered accountant — open an entry to see where it came from.