The High Court held that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in short the Tribunal examined the matter in detail and came to hold as to what was the date of assessment.
In the meantime i.e. on 17.8.1987 a letter was written by the assessee to the Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi III wherein it admitted the companymission income of Rs.1.61 crores and odd and offered to pay tax thereon.
The information was passed on by the Government of India to the Income Tax Department.
Subsequently, on 23.6.1987, the assessee filed a revised return showing the same figure of loss of Rs.4,151/ and the carried forward loss of Rs.11,175/ .
It was also submitted in the said companymunication that taxes on the amount of Rs.1 crore and odd have been deposited on 19.8.1987 and a further sum of Rs.17,144/ on 27.8.1987.
Ltd. The order in terms of Section 143 1 on the facts passed on 29.7.1987 accepted the returned loss.
Arising out of SLP C No.
15613 of 2004 ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
Appellant calls in question legality of the order passed by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dismissing the appeal filed under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in short the Act , holding that numberreference was necessary.
While the assessment proceedings were in progress it came to the numberice of the Department that for the relevant assessment year a Japanese Company is paying a sum of Rs.1,61,52,472/ plus Rs.21,71,121/ by way of companymission in respect of purchases made by the Department of Electronics, Government of India, from M s Sumitomo Corporation, the aforesaid Japanese Company.
