9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Claim for deduction of excise duty in income tax return. 2. Disallowance of deduction by Income-tax Officer. 3. Direction by Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for adjustment of excise duty. 4. Failure to carry out the direction by the Commissioner of Income-tax. 5. Petition seeking enforcement of the Tribunal's order. 6. Applicability of sections 35(2) and 33(4) of the Income-tax Act. 7. Jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal to pass orders on proceedings of an earlier year. 8. Availability of alternative remedies such as appeal or stating a case under section 66 of the Act. 9. Validity of issuing a writ of mandamus to enforce an order passed without jurisdiction. Analysis: The judgment involves a petition under article 226 of the Constitution concerning the deduction of excise duty in an income tax return by a firm operating a sugar mill. The firm claimed a deduction of &8377; 76,836 under section 10(2) of the Income-tax Act for the relevant accounting year. However, the Income-tax Officer disallowed the deduction, stating it related to sales from the preceding year. The firm appealed to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, which directed the adjustment of the excise duty as an expenditure for the earlier assessment year of 1941-42. Despite the Tribunal's order, the Commissioner of Income-tax failed to carry out the adjustment, leading to the firm filing a petition seeking a writ of mandamus to enforce the Tribunal's order. The legal issue addressed in the judgment pertains to the jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal to pass orders on proceedings of an earlier year. The court highlighted that the powers of the Tribunal under section 33(4) of the Income-tax Act are limited to passing orders in the proceedings before it on appeal. The judgment emphasized that the Tribunal lacks the authority under this section to issue directions regarding concluded proceedings of an earlier year. It was noted that if the firm was dissatisfied with the assessment order for the earlier year, its recourse should have been to request the Tribunal to state a case under section 66 of the Act, rather than seeking enforcement through a writ of mandamus. Furthermore, the judgment discussed the applicability of sections 35(2) and 33(4) of the Income-tax Act. The court pointed out that while section 35(2) empowers the Tribunal to rectify mistakes apparent on the record within a specified time limit, the four-year limitation period rendered it inapplicable in this case. The judgment clarified that the direction given by the Tribunal, which the firm sought to enforce, was beyond the scope of section 33(4) as it related to proceedings of an earlier year. Ultimately, the court concluded that the petitioner failed to establish a legal right to the relief sought through the petition. As a result, the petition was dismissed with costs. The judgment underscored the importance of adhering to the proper legal procedures, such as appealing or requesting a case statement, rather than seeking enforcement through writs in cases where the Tribunal's jurisdiction is in question.
|
