2011 (8) TMI 727 - HC - Income Tax

Powers of Court - Extension for Completion of Assessment under 153 by 6 months - Sufficient opportunity for furnishing relevant material - Documents demanded in custody of Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) - Held That - The mere justification for extending the time cannot also be a ground to extend the time for completion of assessment when the statute does not provide for it. - Article 226 nowhere says that court has any inherent power or pass any order in the interests of justice . Courts are bound to act only within the four corners of the law when there is a law or statute governing a field and even otherwise courts cannot do anything which is not permitted by law even though there is no express prohibition for doing it. Further the petitioner has got remedies under the Act itself if it is aggrieved by the assessment or reassessment orders and it can pursue those remedies. Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Extension of time for completion of income tax assessments.
2. Jurisdiction of the court to extend the time limit prescribed by statute.
3. Petitioner's inability to furnish information due to seizure of documents by CBI.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Extension of Time for Completion of Income Tax Assessments:
The petitioner sought an extension of the time limit prescribed under Section 153 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the completion of assessments for AY 2002-03 and AY 2007-08. The petitioner requested a six-month extension from the date of obtaining access to documents in the custody of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and other agencies. The petitioner also sought a direction for the Assessing Officer to pass an assessment order only after providing sufficient opportunity to furnish the necessary information and explanations.

2. Jurisdiction of the Court to Extend the Time Limit Prescribed by Statute:
The court examined whether it had the power under the Act or Article 226 of the Constitution to extend the statutory time limit for completing assessments. The petitioner argued that Section 153(3)(ii) of the Act empowered the court to extend the time, while the respondent contended that the court could not extend the time limit unless it involved a finding or direction regarding the assessments. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Hope Textiles Ltd. v. Union of India, which held that sub-clause (ii) of Section 153(3) could not be understood as empowering the High Court to ignore the period of limitation prescribed by the statute. The court concluded that it could not extend the time limit as the statute did not provide for such an extension.

3. Petitioner's Inability to Furnish Information Due to Seizure of Documents by CBI:
The petitioner claimed that it could not produce the required information because the CBI had seized the relevant documents and deposited them in a special court. The petitioner argued that it needed considerable time to obtain these records. However, the respondent contended that the petitioner had already furnished part of the information and that the current plea was an attempt to delay the proceedings. The court noted that even if the petitioner faced difficulties in furnishing the information, it could not extend the statutory time limit based on these grounds.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed both writ petitions, stating that it could not issue a mandamus or any other writ directing a statutory authority to violate a statutory provision or act beyond its scope. The court emphasized that it could not extend the time limit prescribed by the statute under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner was advised to pursue remedies available under the Act if aggrieved by the assessment or reassessment orders.