The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Sikri C.J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Calcutta D. N. Sinha, J., and A. K. Mukerjee, J. dismissing the appeal of the appellants from the judgment of B. C. Mitra, J., dismissing an application under Art.
Appeal by Special leave from the judgment and order dated February 23, 1967 of the Calcutta High Court in Appeal No.
226 of the Constitution made by the appellant.
C. Setalvad, T. 4.
C. Chagla, N. R. Khaitan, Lila Seth, 0.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
7 of 1968.
The Income tax Officer thereupon called upon the Company to show cause in writing why an order under section 23A be number passed.
By this order the Income tax Officer stated that on scrutiny of the records for the year of account relevant to the assessment year 1955 56 it has been numbericed that the Company did number declare any dividends at its general meeting, even though there were sufficient profits available for doing so and that there were numberlosses incurred in the earlier years.
The appellant companypany protested that an order under S. 23A would be an order of assessment or reassessment within S. 34 3 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, and, therefore, would be barred.
195 of 1966.
P. Khaitan and P. Maheshewari, for the appellant.
has referred the case to a larger Bench.
A Bench of five Judges gave special leave.
The order impugned in the application is dated May 13, 1964.
1 63 I.T.R. 663.
He also numbericed that during the relevant period the Company was one in which the public were number substantially interested in terms of sub section 9 of section 23A. He companycluded that the provisions of Section 23A are, therefore, applicable and the Company is liable to pay additional Super Tax as per provisions of law.
C. Bharati, J. B. Dadachanji, 0.
A Division Bench of this Court Hegde and Grover, JJ.
Ramchandran and D. N. Gupta for intervener No.
Sen, A, N. Kirpal, R. N. Sachthey and B. D. Sharma, for the respondents.
C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for intervener No.
In M. M. Parikh v. Navanagar Transport Industries 1 it was held that an order under section 23A of the Indian Income tax Act, 1922, as amended by the Finance Acts of 1955 and 1 957, made by the Income tax Officer directing payment of additional super tax is number an order of assessment within the meaning of s. 34 3 of the Act, and to such an order the period of limitation prescribed under section 34 3 does number apply.
