9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (9) TMI 228X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 seeking direction to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (for short "the Tribunal") to refer the following substantial question of law for opinion of the court: "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that in the case of the companies, which are under liquidation, section 104 of the Income-tax Act would have no application and consequently erred in quashing the proceedings under section 104 of the Income-tax Act initiated in the case of the assessee-company?" 2. Assessment pertaining to the assessment year 1979-80 was completed on June 23, 1982. During the course of the assessment it was found that the assessee had not declared the dividend for the yea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment year 1971-72 of the same assessee was as under: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was not under an obligation to file an estimate in terms of section 212(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and was not liable to pay any interest under section 217(1A) of the said Act ?" 6. For the assessment years 1972-73 to 1974-75 of the assessee, the reference of the questions of law made by the Tribunal was as under: "1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the provisions of section 220(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were inoperative in the case of a company which was in liquidation by the orders of the winding-up court? 2. Whether ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who upheld the order of the Income-tax Officer. The official liquidator filed further appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower courts. The Department filed an application for making reference to the court which was accordingly made. The court dealing with such a situation observed as under (page 739): "Mr. Surolia, learned counsel for the Revenue, was unable to show any later decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court taking a different view from the view already taken in the cases of Kondaskar (S. V.), Official Liquidator and Official Liquidators of the Coloba Land and Mills Co. Ltd. v. Deshpande (V. M.) [1972] 83 ITR 685 (SC) and Union of India v. India Fisheries (P.) Lt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessee was not under a bona fide belief that the income of the assessee was not liable to tax and he was right in showing his income as nil. Learned counsel for the assessee has placed reliance on CIT v. N. Khan and Brothers [1973] 92 ITR 338 (All), CIT v. Allied Silk Mills [1983] 140 428 (Bom), CIT v. Bharat Machinery and Hardware Mart [1982] 136 ITR 875 (Guj) and CIT v. Ajit Sing Bhagat Sing [1985] 151 ITR 696 (Raj), a Division Bench judgment of this court and CIT v. Hazari Mal Milap Chand Surana [1987] 163 ITR 531 for the proposition that the assessee cannot be held guilty and was right in not disclosing the income of the assessee-company, being under liquidation, as an income assessable under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
