9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (4) TMI 68X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o as the "Act"), requesting the Tribunal to state the case and refer the question regarding the assessment being barred by limitation, to the High Court for its opinion. The Tribunal, vide its order dated November 20,1985, accepted the request made by the Revenue and stated the case referring the question of law for the opinion of the High Court which is still pending consideration. The petitioner had, for the assessment year 1980-81, paid a sum of Rs. 7,40,802 as income-tax, which, as a result of annulment of assessment by the Appellate Tribunal, became refundable to it under section 240 of the Act. When the income-tax authorities did not refund the said amount, the petitioner, vide its letter dated July 20, 1985, requested the Inspectin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are pending. Before withholding the refund, the Income-tax Officer has also to form an opinion that the grant of refund is likely to adversely affect the Revenue. In our opinion, the section does not postulate that the grant of refund during the pendency of proceedings under the Act is an act which necessarily affects the Revenue adversely. The opinion whether the grant of refund during the pendency of some proceedings under the Act would adversely affect the interest of the Revenue, will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In the instant case, the communication dated December 9, 1985, made by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to the petitioner, did not indicate that before withholding the refund, the Appellate Assis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... during the pendency of an appeal against the said decision before the Supreme Court. We find that in the aforementioned case, the validity of section 241 of the Act was questioned on the following two grounds: (1) That the Income-tax Officer, even if it be with the previous approval of the Commissioner, had no jurisdiction to render the judgment of the High Court ineffective on the ground that the appeal preferred by the Revenue against the judgment of the High Court, was pending before the Supreme Court, or that the grant of the refund was likely to adversely affect the Revenue, and (2) That the section conferred arbitrary exercise of power on the Income-tax Officer and did not provide for any guidelines or classification, thereby offe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
