It will be numbericed that numberprayer was made for quashing the order of the Commissioner, dated August 23, 1958, and the order of the Central Board of Revenue dated December 31, 1958.
The appellant then on October 7, 1960, filed a petition under Art.
On August 28, 1959, the Income Tax Officer issued three numberices of demand under s. 29 of the Act in respect of the Assessment years 1949 50, 1950 51 and 1951 52.
After giving the relevant facts and submissions, the appellant prayed that the High Court be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamits or a writ, direction or order under Art.
In this letter the appellant gave arguments in support of its request.
226 of the Constitution.
The appellant, in its letter dated June 30, 1958, replied that numberprovisional claim for double income tax relief was made by the appellant within the time prescribed.
The appellant also approached the Central Board of Revenue,.
The appellant then wrote a letter dated September 4, 1959, requesting the IncomeTax Officer to set off the refunds to which the appellant was entitled pursuant to the Provisions of Income Tax Double Taxation Relief Ceylon Rules, 1942, and read with the provisions of ss.
C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for the appellant.
V. Viswanatha Sastri, T. A. Ramachandra, J. B. Dadachanji, 0.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated February 24, 1961 of the Bombay High Court in Misc.
It attached an original certificate for tax showing payment of Rs.
It appears that in the meantime the petitioner had paid tax for the assessment years 1949 50 and 1950 51, and the demand for Rs.
49A and 48 of the Income Tax Act, in respect of the assessment years 1942 43, 1943 44 and 1944 45, relating to Ceylon, and the assessment year 1947 48 and 1949 50 relating to Kolhapur and Kapurthala, against the said demands.
79,430.19 out of the total demand relating to the assessment year 1955 56, till the decision of the Central Board of Revenue.
The Central Board of Revenue, by its letter dated December 31, 1958, declined to interfere in the matter.
136 of 1964.
The Central Board of Revenue, however, by its letter dated June 24, 1960, declined to interfere in the matter.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
On June 27, 1956, the Income Tax Officer rejected the claim on the ground that the claim filed by the appellant was number within the time limit of four years laid down in r. 5 of Income Tax Double Taxation Relief Indian States Rules 1939 hereinafter called the Indian States Rules.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Sikri, J. This is an appeal on a certificate granted by the High Court of Bombay against its judgment dated February 24, 1961, dismissing the petition filed by the appellant under Art.
Ganapathy lyer, R. H. Dheber and R. S. Sachthey, for the respondent.
The appellant stated in the petition that unfortunately the Companys assessment for the year in question was companypleted by the Income Tax Officer on the last day of the financial year 1953 54, i.e., 31 3 1954 being the last date on which their claim for double income tax relief should have been lodged.
226 for quashing the above orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax or the Central Board of Revenue.
In absence of the assessment order being received by the Company it was number physically practicable for the assessee to lodge its claim for double income tax relief and as such the time prescribed under Section 50 had already expired when the assessment order was received by the companypany.
urging similar points.
The appellant then approached the Central Board of Revenue.
37,828/11/ , and requested that a refund order be passed at an early date.
On July 9, 1954, the appellant wrote a letter to the Income Tax Officer, Companies Circle, Bombay, stating that for the assessment year 1949 50, it was entitled to refund on the income taxed in Kapurthala State.
226 of the Constitution, directing the respondents to set off the refunds due to the petitioner under the aforesaid double taxation relief rules against the tax payable by it for the assessment year 1955 56.
Application No.
On December 18, 1956, the appellant filed a revision, under s. 33A of the Act, against the said order, before the Com missioner of Income Tax, Bombay.
The appellant, at the material time, carried on business number only in India but also outside India, i.e. Ceylon, the former States of Kolhapur and Kapurthala and other places.
226 of the Constitution of India.
The appellant did number take any steps to apply to the High Court under Art.
226 of the Constitution prohibiting the respondents, their officers, servants and agents from demanding or recovering from the petitioner the tax payable by it for the assessment year 195556 without first setting off against that tax the refunds due to the petitioner under the aforesaid double tax relief rules.
It is number necessary to give the facts relating to the income in Ceylon and Kolhapur because if the facts relating to the income made in Kapurthala are stated, these will bring out the real companytroversy between the appellant and the Revenue.
89,000.58 for the assessment year 1951 52 was kept in abeyance, and later when the assessment for 1955 56 was companypleted, the Income Tax Officers had agreed to keep in abeyance Rs.
333 of 1960.
