Case Details

Citation(s)
2008 SLG 2811 2008 SLD 2811 (2008) 296 ITR 77
Madras High Court
W.P. NO. 13786 OF 2004 MARCH 12, 2007
P.D. DINAKARAN AND MRS. CHITRA VENKATARAMAN, JJ.
V. Ramachandran and Dr. Anita Sumanth for the Petitioner. Mrs. Pushya Sitaraman for the
Respondent.

Marshals' Supersoft Technologies Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer

Law:

Section:

Section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - High Court - Reference to Where issue involved in writ petitions required investigation into facts, including issue on jurisdiction, and there were no extraordinary circumstance to go into merits. [A.Y., 2000-01] The assessee filed its return of income for 2000-01 and claimed tax benefits under section 80-IA. Admittedly, the return of income was deficient for want of financial statements. The said defect was not rectified within the stipulated time, in spite of a notice calling upon the petitioner to do so. The assessment was reopened under section 147. The petitioner filed the financial statement, but asked for the return of income filed originally being treated as a return in response to section 148. The petitioner was called upon to furnish the required particulars as regards its claim for the benefit under section 80-IA. Summons issued to the directors (at Chennai) were returned unserved with postal remarks "not known". The assessment was completed on merits. The petitioner submitted that considering the total lack of jurisdiction assess this petitioner under section 148, the writ petition filed merited consideration by the High Court. The petitioner contended that for the purpose of assessment and other related matters under the Companies Act, the Income-tax Act and other enactments, the registered office was at Pondicherry: Held that a perusal of the orders impugned herein showed that the issues raised in the writ petition were taken before the ITO too, who had passed the orders after considering the same. Since the issue involved in the writ petitions required investigation into the facts, including the issue on jurisdiction, there were no extraordinary circumstance to go into the merits. It was a matter for the statutory authorities to consider if and when an appeal was preferred. Admittedly, the assessee had an alternative remedy, and it was not denied that it was an efficacious remedy. Therefore, the instant writ was to be dismissed. JUDGMENT Mrs. Chitra Venkataraman, J.-This writ petition is preferred against the order of assessment dated March 30, 2004, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the same. The…
🔒
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