Sh. Joginder Paul and Smt. Kartar Kaur and Sh. Subhash Chander V. The Commissioner of Income-tax Central, Ludhiana

CWP/8263/1987

AI Insights

This case involves a bunch of three writ petitions filed by Sh. Joginder Paul, Smt. Kartar Kaur, and Sh. Subhash Chander against the Commissioner of Income-tax Central, Ludhiana. The petitions challenged the additional tax demands raised following the processing of their income tax returns for the assessment year 1979-80 under Section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The petitioners objected to the assessments, but the assessments were not completed under Section 143(3) within the statutory time frame. The court examined whether the demands for additional tax could be enforced and whether the petitioners were entitled to refunds of the advance taxes paid.

• Counselvise Citation: [2006] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 819429 (HC-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 30-09-2006
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Shelly Products and another, (2003) 261 I.T.R. 367
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: N L SHARDA
• Keywords: Assessment Year 1979-80; Income tax assessment; Refund of Advance Tax; Demand of additional tax
• Section: 143(3); 143(1); 143(2)(a); 153(1)(a)(iii)

Judgement Text

"t- o:: :J 0 U :I: C) - :I: < Z ~ 0:: < :I: ~ [Q < ..., Z :J a.. - \"..,, - - ~ ~~ IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.8263 of 1987 f '{ O/ ~, ) ) Date of decision: September ~/ ,2006 - (l)C.W.P.No.8263 of 1987 Sh.Joginder Paul v. The Commissioner of Income-tax Central, Ludhiana and another (2)C.W.P.No.8264 of 1987 Smt.Kartar Kaur v. The Commissioner of Income-tax Central, Ludhiana and another (3)C.W.P.No.8265 of 1987 Sh.Subhash Chander v. The Commissioner of Income-tax Central, Ludhana and another Present: None for the petitioners. Dr.N.L.Sharda, Advocate for the respondents. CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal 1. Whether Reporters of local papers maybe allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Rajesh Bindal, J. This is a bunch of three writ petitions, involving common questions of fact and law. Accordingly, the same are being disposed of by a common order. For the sake of reference, the facts have been taken from C.W.P.No. 8263 of 1987. The petitioner in the present case filed his return of income for the assessment year 1979-80, on 26.3.1981, declaring his taxable income at Rs. 25,560/-. The return filed by the petitioner was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') on 30.2.1982 at a total income of Rs. 43,790/- and accordingly, an additional demand of Rs. 16,707/- was) raised against the petitioner after adjusting the amount of advance tax already paid by the --- ---\"---- ... - - h- - - --\"n.. --....._---- -r-\"--- , , ... a::: ::» 0 u J: C) - J: J J: C) - J: <3: z ~ 0:: <3: J: cd OJ <3: \"\"\") Z ::J a.. him, on a date to be therein specified, either to attend at the Income- tax Officer's office or to produce, or to cause to be there produced, any evidence on which the assessee may rely in support of the return; Provided that, in a case, where an assessment has been made under sub-section (1), the notice under this sub-section [except where such notice is in pursuance of an application by the assessee under clause (a)] shall not be issued by the Income-tax Officer unless the previous approval of the)nspecting .. Assistant Commissioner has been obtained to the issue of such notice: Provided further that in a case where the assessment made under sub- section (1) is objected to by the assessee by an application under clause (a), the assessee shall not be deemed to be in default in respect of the whole or any part of the amount of the tax demanded in) pursuance of the assessment under that sub-section, which is disputed by the assessee, in so far as such amount does not relate to any adjustment referred to in sub-clause (i) of clause (b) of sub-section (1), and further no interest shall be chargeable under sub-section (2) of Section 220 in respect of such disputed amount. xx xx xx Time limit for completion of assessments and reassessments. 153.(1) No order. of assessment shall be made under section 143 or section 144 at any time after - (a) the expiryof- (i) four years from the end of the assessment year in which the income was first assessable, where such.assessment year is ) an assessment year commencing on or before the 1st day of April, 1967; (ii)three years from the end of the assessment year in which the I- ~ ::> 0 u J: C) - J: D. ~'-- C.W.P.No.8263 of 1987 [4] income was first assessable, where such assessment year is. the assessmept year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1968; (iii)two years from the end of the assessment year in which the income was first assessable, where such assessment year is an assessment year commencing on or after..the 1st day of . ) April, 1969; or\" A perusal of Section 143(2)(a) of the Act shows that where an assessment has been made under Section 143(1) of the Act, an assessee can move an application objecting to the assessment within one month from the date of service of demand notice issued in consequence of the order under Section 143(1) . of the Act. Proviso thereto further contemplates that where the order passed under Section 143(1) of the Act has been objected to, the assessee shall not be deemed to be in default in respect of the amount of tax demanded in pursuance of such assessment. Section 143(2) of the Act inter-alia further provides that on receipt of the objections, the Assessing Officer shall serve on the assessee a notice requidng him to appear on the date specified. On hearing the assessee and considering his objections, an order of fresh assessment shall be passed in writing determining the total income or loss. Under Section 153(1)(a)(iii) of the Act, an order of assessment could be passed within two years from the end of the assessment year, Le., up to 31.3.1982 for !he assessment year 1979-80involved in the present case. The assessment order having not been passed within the stipulated time, as provided under Section 153(1)(a)(iiii) of the Act, there is no justification with the respondents to enfor.ce the demand created in the order passed under Section 143(1) of the Act as the demand raised on the basis there~f itself couid not be given effect to in terms of proviso to Section 143(2) of the Act. As far as the plea raised by the respondents in the written statement to the effect that communication of rejection of the objections by the respondents vide letter dated 2.5:1986 was sufficient compliance of the provisions of the Act and thereafter the respondents were at liberty to enforce the demand is totally , -. - ~ J :> ) I: , - I: ~ Z ~ ~ t: ~ I: ~ :a ::( '\") Z :J 1. C.W.P.No.8263 of 1987 [5] misconceived and does not fit in the scheme of the Act. Firstly, after the objections were raised by the petitioner, the same were to be dealt with, either by accepting or rejecting at the time of framing the assessment, and whatever was to be done, the same was to be completed ''Yithintwo years from the end of the assessment year in terms of Section 153(1)(a)(iii) of the Act. The same having not been done, the bar created under proviso to Section 143(2) of the Act continues and the recovery cannot be enforced against the petitioner. Even otherwise, the type of communication sought to be relied upon by the respondents cannot, in any manner, qe termed to be an assessment order. As far as the prayer of the petitioner for refund of the advance tax paid by him is concerned, the same cannot be granted in terms of binding precedent, as laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Shelly Products and another, (2003) 261 I.T.R. 367, wherein it was held as under: \"Failure or inability to frame another assessment after the earlier assessment is set aside or nullified in appropriate proceedings does not entitle the assessee to claim refund of advance tax and tax paid on self-assessment, because to that extent the assessee has admitted his liability to pay tax in accordance with the law. If the assessing authority, on an earlier assessment made being set aside or nullified in appropriate proceedings, cannot make a fresh assessment, it amounts to deemed acceptance of the return of incQmefurnished by the assessee. In such a case the assessing authority is denuded of its authority to verify the correctn~ss and completeness of the return, which authority if has while framing a regular assessment. The assessing authority must accept the return as furnished and cannot in any event raise a demand for payment of further taxes. Accepting the income as disclosed in the return furnished by the assessee, it must refund to the assessee any tax paid by the assessee in excess of the liability incurred by him on the basis of the income disclosed. Even if the tax paid is found to be less than that payable, no further demand can be made for recovery of the balance since the fresh assessment is barred. Any retention of the balance may offend article 265.\" C.W.P.No.8263 of 1987 [6] For the reasons stated above, the writ petitions are partly allowed, while holding that the respondents are not entitled to enforce the demand as raised in the order passed under Section 143(1)of the Act, whereas on the other hand, the . .. I petitioners shall not be entitled to refund of the advance tax or self-tax assessed, paid by them. The writ petitions are disposed of in the manner indicated above. I- r::t:: :J 0 U :I: C) - J: « Z ~ \" ~//-;~'~/~ -x 0 v ' y, vu lJ/ ~~ ;t~~ ~ :J r f ~b d t\"Jb a.. fJr ' ~fkO ~4C September ~ L 2006 mk ~ "