9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 845X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncome liable to tax should not be enhanced and why the books of accounts of the petitioner-company should not be rejected and also directed the petitioner-company to show the status of the petitioner as a company. 2. On behalf of the writ petitioner, it is contended that Central Coalfields Limited (CCL) is a public sector undertaking and registered as a company in the year 1956. In view of sub-section (17) and (26) of Section 2 of the I.T Act, 1961, the Income Tax Department had rightly assessed the status of the petitioner as a "Company". The petitioner, right from its inception till date, i.e. 1956-57 to 2010-11, had filed its returns and had been assessed to income. The books of accounts are subject to various audits including the statutory audit, C.A.G audit etc. 3. In the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Ramesh Gandhi in Criminal Appeal No.1356/2004, Hon'ble Supreme Court, holding that there was no direction or order by the Calcutta High Court fixing the price of the coal sold by M/s. CCL to various concerns, set aside the order of the Calcutta High Court and restored the FIR lodged by the CBI for causing wrongful loss to the assessee. Referring to the order of the Hon'ble ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that since the inception of the petitionercompany, Income Tax Department has rightly assessed the status of the petitioner as a "Company" in terms of sub-section (17) and (26) of Section 2 of the I.T Act and by issuing the show cause notice, CIT (Appeals) committed serious error in doubting the status of the petitioner as a "Company". Learned Senior Counsel, inter alia, raised the following contentions:- (i) The petitioner is assessed as a company under the Income Tax Act and the returns filed by the petitioner-company has been duly considered under the relevant provisions and over the year and the Department has also accepted the order of assessment so made. (ii) Under Section 148 of the I.T Act, the Assessing Officer has the power to issue notice in case of escaped assessment and can pass orders for reassessment and Section 263 of the I.T Act empowers the Commissioner to reopen the assessment if the Commissioner is of the view that the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Over the years the returns filed by the petitioner-company was accepted by the Department and after lapses of time, settled issues should not be allowed to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of the writ petition for the reasons indicated infra. 9. The petitioner-company was incorporated in the year 1956 and enjoying the status of a "Company" under the Companies Act, 1956 and also under the Income Tax Act. The petitioner-company is maintaining Books of Accounts/Balance Sheet, Profit & Loss Account and other documents every year in compliance of the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. Learned Senior Counsel had drawn our attention to some of the assessment orders to contend that the petitioner-company has always been assessed every year under the status of a "Company". It is stated that the Books of Accounts is audited by the statutory auditor (appointed by the Comptroller & Auditor General of India under Section 619(2) of the Companies Act, 1956) every year and the Balance Sheet and Profit & Loss Account of the petitioner-company are certified every year by the Statutory Auditors of the Company under the provisions of Section 227(2) of the Companies Act, 1956. As is seen from the assessment orders for different years, the petitioner-company also enjoys the status of a "Company" under the I.T Act, 1961 under Section 2(17)(i) read with subsection (26) of the 2 and i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der the I.T Act, 1961. The relevant portion of the impugned show cause notice, expressing view that the petitioner is not a company, reads as under:- " 5.Before adjudicating the correctness or otherwise of the claims and counter-claims of the Ld. A.O and the appellant, it is absolutely necessary to first determine the correct status of M/s.CCL in terms of provisions of sub-sec. 31 of sec. 2 read with subsections 17, 26 and 36A of sec. 2 of the I.T Act, 1961 further read with sec.12 of the Companies Act, 1956 as that will have very serious bearing on the full and correct income of the assessee. 6. It is seen that M/s.CCL appears to be formed in the status of a company by only one legal person i.e. the Central Government acting through the President of India and his delegatee the Hon'ble Minister in charge and the officers working on behalf of the Hon'ble Minister in terms of the provisions of the Government of India (Transaction of Business) Rules, 1961 and therefore it cannot be said that the requirements of sec.12 of the Companies Act, 1956 were fulfilled. 7. There is no material on material on record to show that M/s.CCL has been granted the status of company under the provisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
