9911796707
TMI Blog1978 (8) TMI 61X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the affirmative and the second in the negative. Hence, this reference at the instance of the CIT. In respect of various chargeable accounting periods ranging from 1st April, 1946, to 31st March, 1949, the ITO issued a notice under s. 11 of the Business Profits Tax Act, 1947, within a year, and so were provisional assessments made under s. 13 of the Act, the details whereof are as under. The regular assessments were, however, made nearly 20 years later on 30th December, 1969, for all these periods. The tax demand created by the provisional and the regular assessments is also indicated below. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iod. In the alternative, it was held that 20 years was an unreasonably long period. The department has failed to justify the delay. The regular assessments were hence quashed. In CIT v. Narsee Nagsee Co. [1960] 40 ITR 307, the Supreme Court by majority held that the notice under s. 11(1) of the Act ought to be issued within the financial year commencing next after the expiry of the accounting period. This conclusion was reached by a process of construction of ss. 11(1) and 14 of the Act read with s. 50 of the Indian I.T. Act as adapted by the Business Profits Tax Rules. Section 11(1) did not prescribe any period of limitation for issuing the notice with a view to bring the chargeable profits to tax under the Business Profits Tax Act. Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the assessment must be made prior to the expiry of the time fixed by the rules for claiming refund. In other words, the assessment itself must be made within four years. According to this Supreme Court authority, the position is that the notice under s. 11(1) must be issued within one year of the end of the chargeable accounting period and the assessment must be made within four years thereof. Learned counsel for the revenue stressed many aspects which were virtually the reproduction of the minority opinion expressed by Hidayatullah J. in the aforesaid case. Since the majority decision is binding, it is unnecessary to dilate upon those various aspects. In this view, it is unnecessary to deal with the question whether the making o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
