9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (2) TMI 57X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d under section 139(1) in compliance of notice under section 148 has not been accepted. It is prayed that the return under section 139(1) in compliance of notice under section 148 be accepted. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act having its head office at Varanasi. The petitioner established a vanaspati manufacturing unit which started production from March 29,1990. The petitioner maintains account on mercantile basis. For the assessment year 1990-91, the petitioner filed a return under the Income-tax Act on December 31,1990, declaring a loss of Rs. 24,61,860. Notice under section 143(2) of the Act dated June 18,1991, was issued to the petitioner and was served on hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted March 18,1994, alleging that the income of the petitioner chargeable to tax for the assessment year 1990-91 had escaped assessment and asking to the petitioner to submit a return. True copy of the notice is annexure 4 to the writ petition. The petitioner filed a reply dated March 24,1994 (vide annexure 5 to the petition). In this letter he has stated that the return filed under section 139(1) should be taken to be the return in compliance of the notice under section 148.The petitioner has also prayed that the reasons recorded under section 148 be supplied to him. In response the respondent passed an order that the return filed under section 139(1) shall not be accepted as the return in response to the notice under section 148. The res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the notice under section 148 cannot be issued when assessment proceedings are pending vide CIT v. Ranchhoddas Karsondas [1959] 36 ITR 569 (SC); CIT v. S. Raman Chettiar [1965] 55 ITR 630 (SC); N. Naganatha Iyer v. CIT [1966] 60 ITR 647 (Mad); Ram Bilas Kedar Nath v. ITO [1963] 47 ITR 586 (All); Dr. Onkar Dutt Sharma v. CIT [1967] 65 ITR 359 (All); Sool Chand Ram Sewak v. CIT [1969] 73 ITR 466 (All); S.P. Kochhar v. ITO [1984] 145 ITR 255 (All); Trustees of H.E.H. The Nizam's Supplemental Family Trust v. CIT [2000] 242 ITR 381 (SC) and CIT v. M.K.K.R. Muthukaruppan Chettiar [1970] 78 ITR 69 (SC), etc. In the present case, the petitioner filed a supplementary affidavit stating that against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
