9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (10) TMI 158X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In support of the stay, the learned counsel for the petitioner Shri K.R. Rammani relied upon the following decisions : 1. ITO v. M.K. Mohammed Kunhi [1969] 71 ITR 815 (SC), 2. Puran Mal Kauntia v. ITO [1975] 98 ITR 39 (Pat.), 3. ITO v. Khalid Mehdi Khan (Minor) [1977] 110 ITR 79 (AP), 4. Surjit Surinder Investments (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [1986] 19 ITD 286 (Chd.) 5. Ritz Ltd. v. D.D. Vyas [1990] 185 ITR 311 (Bom.). and also the decision of this Tribunal (Madras Bench 'B') dated 20-8-1987 passed in S.P. Nos. 62 to 114 (Mds)/1987. 2. Now let us consider whether there is any prima facie case made out for grant of stay. As already stated, the appeals were filed by the assessee against the common revisionary order passed by the Commissioner under section 25(4) of the Wealth-tax Act for the assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83 by his order dated 31-3-1989. By means of the said common order the learned Commissioner set aside the assessment orders for the assessment years 1981-82 and 82-83 with a direction to make a fresh assessment after ascertaining the exact extent of land which is appurtenant to the assessee's residence and arrive at the market value of such excess land and ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is position. The MMDA classified the entire land as residential and the revenue authorities stopped collecting any land revenue thereon. The learned Commissioner held when there was no presumption that the land once found agricultural should continue to be so for ever. In fact the assessee constructed the house only on the vacant site which she purchased. She also gifted away portions of the land to her children enabling them to construct houses thereon. In view of the factual position obtaining he rejected the contention of the assessee that the vacant land should be treated as agricultural and exempt from the provisions of the Wealth-tax Act. The learned Commissioner also held that no agricultural operations in fact were carried on by the assessee in the said excess land. With regard to the assessment proceedings for 1983-84 the assessee obtained stay of the assessed tax from the Hon'ble Madras High Court. However, it was not denied that when the valuation cell valued the very same property for 1983-84 the assessee fully participated in the proceedings before the valuation cell which ultimately culminated in the order passed by the valuation cell under section 16A(5) dated 28-3-1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... juncture by the Tribunal would only prevent a fresh assessment order from being passed within the time allowed under law. 8. Further on the Bench we have expressed a doubt and specifically requested the assessee's counsel to clarify the legal position whether the Tribunal has got the powers to order stay of proceedings which the valuation cell is empowered to carry on under section 16A of the Wealth-tax Act. As a matter of fact the question posed by the Bench was whether any public official can be prevented by an order of the court from discharging his lawful duties? In this connection the learned counsel for the assessee had invited our attention to the Chandigarh Bench decision of the Tribunal in Surjit Surinder Investments (P.) Ltd.'s case. In the facts before them, the Commissioner directed to withdraw the investment allowance already granted by the Income-tax Officer and directed the Income-tax Officer to pass a fresh assessment order. In that connection a stay petition was filed for directing to stop the Income-tax Officer from passing a fresh assessment in respect of the investment allowance which is bound to result in creation of demand. The stay was granted, as otherwi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts were not barred by limitation. However, observing that certain procedural irregularities were committed, while making the reassessment, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the assessment and directed the Income-tax Officer to make fresh assessment, after following the procedure according to law. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was confirmed by the Tribunal by its order dated 18-10-1982. A reference application was filed under section 256(1) and it was pending before the Tribunal. Subsequently, in May 1983 the assessee filed a stay application before the Tribunal, seeking stay of reassessment proceedings till the disposal of the reference by the High Court. This petition was rejected by the Tribunal. On a writ petition to quash the order of the Tribunal, the High Court refused to grant stay and held as follows: "Held, rejecting the petition, that the Tribunal had rejected the application on merits. Secondly, the assessment years involved were 1965-66 to 1967-68 and 1969-70 and 1970-71. If the assessments were not completed now, it would be very difficult if not impossible for the Department to complete the assessments in accordance with the principles of natural justice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Hon'ble Supreme Court were all fulfilled. We are also of the opinion that in view of the fact that the records available with the MMDA showing that block No. 14, Kotturpuram, within whose limits the impugned land owned by the assessee falls, is shown as primarily residential area and no land in this area has been earmarked for agricultural purposes and in view of the fact that the revenue authorities also have accepted this position by stopping collection of any land revenue would show that the claim of the assessee that it has got a strong prima facie case cannot be accepted at its face value. 11. Further, in N.D. Basu's Law of Injunctions, Fourth Edition, at page 57 laid down the law as follows: " The general rule is that the courts cannot interpose by injunction or mandamus to limit or direct the discretion and action of departmental officers in respect of pending matters, within their jurisdiction and control. In the United States it has been held that as the executive department of the government is not subject to the jurisdiction of the judicial department the President cannot be enjoined from enforcing an act of Congress, on the ground of its being unconstitutional, Mi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
