9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (4) TMI 237X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al is directed against the order of the learned single judge dated April 30, 1999, made in W. P. No. 5017 of 1999. 2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are arrayed as per their rank in the writ petition. 3. The writ petitioner is an assessee before the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, City Circle VII(3), Chennai. She filed the return of income for the assessment year 1995-96 under the provisions of the Income-tax Act. The assessment was completed on March 23, 1998, determining the total income at Rs. 29,26,025. The tax payable in respect of the income other than capital gain was determined at Rs. 75,516, of course after granting necessary rebate under section 88 of the Act, viz., the amount of tax payable on income ot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0 per cent. of an amount of capital gain under section 112 of the Act and in respect of other income, i.e., income other than capital gain, it is taxed at a progressive rates prescribed under the relevant provisions of the Finance Act and the maximum marginal rate of tax was 40 per cent. during the relevant assessment year in question. But the same was resisted by the Revenue on the ground that once the petitioner chooses the benefit of the Samadhan Scheme, its rights and liabilities would be determined only within the purview of the Samadhan Scheme and not otherwise. 7. The learned single judge, by order dated April 30, 1999, holding that there would be two unintended injuries that might be suffered by the petitioner, one in determinin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resentation on behalf of the petitioner. 10. It is a settled law that in a matter of Samadhan Scheme or any such statutory scheme, as the case may be, the courts have no power to act beyond the terms of the statutory scheme under which the benefits have been granted to the assessee vide, Hemalatha Gargya v. CIT [2003] 259 ITR 1 (SC). 11. If that be so, assuming the petitioner would be facing two unintended injuries as observed by the learned single judge in his order referred supra, it may not be proper for this court to issue such a direction to work out her tax liability beyond the expressed terms of statutory schemes. Therefore, suffice it to set aside the impugned order dated February 22, 1999, and modify the order of the le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
