Case Details

Citation(s)
1998 SLG 329 1998 SLD 329 1998 PTD 2534 (1996) 222 ITR 323
Allahabad High Court
Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.290 of 1996, decision dated: 8-04-1996
M. C. AGARWAL, J
Rakesh Kumar Agarwal for Petitioner. Ashok Kumar for
Respondents

TIN MANUFACTURING COMPANY OF INDIA

VS

COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and another FAQIR MUHAMMAD vs THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL SAVINGS, MULTAN REGION, MULTAN Civil Appeal No. 695 of 1988, heard on 19th August, 1991.

Law: Income Tax Act, 1961

Section: 147,148,264

Indian Income Tax Act, 1961------Revision petition before C.I.T. to stay reassessment rejected---Writ petition to stay reassessment proceedings ---Assessee, on facts, trying to obstruct assessment---Writ petition liable to be dismissed in limine-Constitution of India, Art.226---Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 147, 148 & 264. The Central Excise Authorities conducted a search against the assessee and when information was given to the Income-tax Authorities, notices for reassessment were issued. A revision petition before the Commissioner of Income-tax for stay of reassessment was rejected. On a writ petition against such dismissal: Held, that in the reassessment proceedings, the burden was on the Revenue to establish that there was income which escaped assessment. For the purposes of assessment, both sides have the right to adduce evidence. The assessee had been trying to obstruct assessment proceedings which should be discouraged. The petition was liable to be dismissed in limine. JUDGMENT M.C. AGARWAL, J. ---By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges an order, dated March 22, 1996, a copy of which is Annexure " 10" to the writ petition passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax Meerut, in proceedings, purporting to be under section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), and rejecting an application moved by the petitioner for staying the reassessment proceedings for the assessment years 1984-85,1985-86, 1986-87, 1987-88 and 1989-90, pending before the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Special Rage-II, Ghaziabad. I have heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner carries on the business of manufacture and sale of tin container and agriculture implements. Its assessments for the aforesaid assessment years were duly made under section 143 of the Act. Subsequently, the Central Excise Authority conducted a search and seizure operation against the petitioner and recovered documents which showed that the petitioner had sought import licences for much larger quantity of raw materials than…
πŸ”’
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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