9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 1288X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssed by the learned Single Judge who has declined to entertain the writ petition filed by the appellant petitioner, wherein, he has sought for setting aside the order dated 08.03.2006 passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for brevity) and the consequential order passed by the 2nd respondent, in re-assessing the returns for the year 2001-02. 2.Parties are referred to as they are referred to in the writ petition. 3.The case of the petitioner is that they came into existence as a legal entity - the Society under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. The registration certificate was issued by the Registering Authority bearing Registration No.S-49/78-79. They are having its registe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 05 by clubbing the account of the petitioner to that of the respondent No.5. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred the writ petition on the ground that the said clubbing and contents of the order would affect their interest in O.S.No.7934/2001, which is pending consideration. The learned Single Judge after hearing both the parties was of the view that if the respondent No.5 claims to be the Society, which had been assessed by the Income Tax at Mumbai and whose assessment order has been revised, then even, if observations are made in that order, the same cannot bind the petitioner if in law, the petitioner is a different legal person. When such is the position and when even according to the petitioner, the petitioner is an en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t entity to that of the respondent No.5. 6.For the first time, the petitioner filed his return of income in March 2002 for the assessment year 2000-01 showing opening corpus fund of ₹ 39.59 crores in the balance sheet. It is a registered Society at Bangalore and a separate legal entity. According to them, they have nothing to do with the respondent No.5. Now the impugned order passed is by the Director of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai, under Section 263 of the Act. The second order challenged is the order of the assessment passed by the Assistant Director of Income Tax, Mumbai - respondent No.4 in this proceedings. The grievance is that in these proceedings, the petitioner Society is shown as a part of the respondent No.5 - Society. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
