9911796707
TMI Blog1971 (4) TMI 29X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1971 - Judge(s) : R. S. PATHAK., H. N. SETH. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by H. N. SETH J. -This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax. The assessee in this case is M/s. Brij Transport Company Ltd., Saharanpur, and the assessment year involved is 1956-57. The company was assessed to income-ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the order passed under section 23A(1) of the Act was bad in law as it was barred by time, having been passed after the expiry of four years from the end of the assessment year. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, however, rejected the contention of the assessee and held that there was no time limit applicable to the orders passed under section 23A of the Act after its amendment in 1955. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the order passed under section 23A after its amendment by the Finance Act of 1955 in the instant case was barred by time. The Tribunal, however, did not consider the second contention raised on behalf of the assessee. On the finding that the proceedings under section 23A of the Act were barred by time, the Tribunal set aside the order made by the Income-tax Officer. At the instance of the Com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fficer directing payment of additional super-tax was not an order of assessment within the meaning of section 34(3) of the Act, and to such an order the period of limitation prescribed under section 34(3) did not apply. The decision of the Supreme Court is reported as M. M. Parikh v. Navanagar Transport and Industries Ltd. In view of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court mentioned above, the qu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
