9911796707
TMI Blog1971 (11) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Sinha C. J. and A. K. Mukerjee J.) dismissing the appeal of the appellants from the judgment of B. C. Mitra J. dismissing an application under article 226 of the Constitution made by the appellant. The Division Bench followed the decision of this court in M. M. Parikh v. Navanagar Transport Industries Ltd. The order impugned in the application is dated May 13, 1964. By this order, the Income-tax Officer stated that " on scrutiny of the records for the year of account relevant to the assessment year 1955-56 it has been noticed that the company did not declare any dividends at its general meeting, even though there were sufficient profits available for doing so and that there were no losses incurred in the earlier years ". He also noti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... review its earlier judgment because it cannot be said that the earlier decision was clearly erroneous. He drew our attention to the judgment of a Bench of seven judges in Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, where Gajendragadkar C.J., speaking for the court, observed at page 921 : " When this court decides questions of law, its decisions are, under article 141, binding on all courts within the territory of India, and so, it must be the constant endeavour and concern of this court to introduce and maintain an element of certainty and continuity in the interpretation of law in the country. Frequent exercise by this court of its power to review its earlier decisions on the ground that the view pressed before it later appears ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... may, however, add that one point which was not noticed by this court in M. M. Parikh's case or in the judgment of the High Court of Gujarat, appealed from in that case (Navanagar Transport Industries Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer, Special Investigation Circle, Ahmedabad ) tends to show that the case was correctly decided. It seems to us that the words " after the expiry of four years from the end of the year in which the income, profits or gains were first assessable " in section 34(3) are not really apposite to cover the order made under section 23A, as it stood before its amendment by the Finance (No. 2) Act of 1957. Section 34(3), without the proviso, at the relevant time, read as follows : " 34. (3) No order if assessment or reassess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
