| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1995 SLG 14 1995 SLD 14 1995 PTD 212 (1994) 205 ITR 508 |
Supreme Court of India
Civil Appeal No.3006 of 1983, decision dated: 27-10-1993
B.P., JEEVAN REDDY AND S. P. BHARUCHA, JJ
B. Sen, Senior Advocate (S.R. Aggarwal, Advocate, for Messrs Khaitan and Co., Advocates, with him) for Appellants R. Satish and D.S. Mahra, Advocates for
Respondents
Civil Appeal No.3006 of 1983, decision dated: 27-10-1993
B.P., JEEVAN REDDY AND S. P. BHARUCHA, JJ
B. Sen, Senior Advocate (S.R. Aggarwal, Advocate, for Messrs Khaitan and Co., Advocates, with him) for Appellants R. Satish and D.S. Mahra, Advocates for
Respondents
HOPE TEXTILES LTD. and another
VS
UNION OF INDIA and others
Law: Income Tax Act, 1961
Section: 148,153(2)
Income tax----Reassessment---Notice for re-assessment ---Assessee filing return disclosing further losses---No order passed---High Court---Writ---Application for mandamus---No writ beyond period of limitation for making order of assessment---Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 148 & 153(2). A writ of mandamus cannot issue to compel a statutory authority to pass an order in violation of a statutory provision. For the assessment year 1971-72, the appellant-company filed a return on the basis of which an order of assessment was made on March 27, 1974, accepting certain losses disclosed by it. On February 21, 1976, a reassessment notice was issued under section 148 of the Indian Income Tax Act. 1961, pursuant to which the company filed a return disclosed further losses. No order was passed till September, 1981. The appellant company filed a writ petition in the High Court for a mandamus to the Income Tax Officer to pass order in pursuance of the notice. The High Court dismissed the writ petition holding that no mandamus could be issued compelling the Income Tax Officer to make an order of assessment beyond the period of limitation prescribed by section 153(2). The appellant company preferred an appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, observing that sub-clause (ii) of section 153(3) could not be understood as empowering the High Court to give a direction to the authority cinder the Act to ignore the period of limitation prescribed under the Act. Vithaldas v. ITO (1969) 71 ITR 204 (All.) held confined to the facts of that case. ORDER This appeal is preferred against the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The assessee is a limited company. For the assessment year 1971-72, it filed a return on the basis of which an order of assessment was made on March 27, 1974. By the said order, certain losses disclosed by the assessee were accepted. On February 21, 1976, a notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, .1961, was issued to the appellant, in pursuance where or it filed a return on March 27, 1976, for disclosing further losses. No orders were passed till about September, 1981, in the reassessment proceedings. The appellants say…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492