Skip to content


Spaco Carburettors India Ltd. a Company Incorporated Under the Companies Act, 1956 and Mrs. Meena Jaytinbhai Bhatt Vs. Raj Kumar, Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range 16 and Union of India (Uoi) - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Subject

Direct Taxation

Court

Mumbai High Court

Decided On

Case Number

Writ Petition No. 3520 of 1991

Judge

Reported in

2006(2)BomCR665; (2005)199CTR(Bom)598; [2006]284ITR611(Bom); 2005(4)MhLj1087

Acts

Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 32, 32A, 35AB, 143(1), 143(2), 143(3) and 154

Appellant

Spaco Carburettors India Ltd. a Company Incorporated Under the Companies Act, 1956 and Mrs. Meena J

Respondent

Raj Kumar, Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range 16 and Union of India (Uoi)

Appellant Advocate

P.J. Pardiwala, Adv., i/b., R.A.K. Najam and ;Sani, Advs.

Respondent Advocate

Parag Vyas, Adv.

Disposition

Petition allowed

Excerpt:


.....cannot be altered at a subsequent stage particularly once the process of admission has begun. there is hardly any exception to this accepted rule of law. section 10: [swatanter kumar, c.j., a.p. deshpande & smt. nishita mhatre,jj] admission to professional colleges - technical courses - approval to additional seats or to start new course - cut off dates held, the settled principle of law is that merit of the applicant is the primary criteria which would determine his rank as well as the college where he would be entitled to admission. this rule should not be frustrated as it will tantamount to entirely upsetting the object of admissions based on merit oriented method and would cast cloud on the fairness and transparency of the method of admission. one of the ways in which merit can be defeated is allowing increase in the intake strength or commencement if new colleges beyond cut-off date and admissions beyond the last date specified in the notification/calendar issued by the concerned authorities. this can be illustrated by giving an example. college a which is running a professional course like engineering or mba etc. has an intake capacity of 60 seats which has duly..........the petitioners placed on record their submission in support of their claim made in the revised return.6. instead of passing a regular assessment order under section 143(3) of the income tax act, 1961, the assessing officer issued intimation dated july 29, 1991 under section 143(1)(a) of the income tax, 1961 making adjustments without considering the claim of the assessee. the said intimation dated july 29, 1991 is challenged in the present petition.7. mr. pardiwala, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that in the light of the decision of the apex court in the case of commissioner of income tax v. gujarat electricity board : [2003]260itr84(sc) , it was not open to the assessing officer to issue intimation under section 143(1)(a) of the income tax act after issuance of the notice for regular assessment under section 143(3) of the income tax act.8. the learned counsel appearing for the revenue fairly stated that in view of the aforesaid judgment of the apex court, the intimation dated july 29, 1991 issued by the assessing officer under section 143(1)(a) cannot be sustained.9. thus, the issue raised in the petition is squarely concluded by the aforesaid.....

Judgment:


J.P. Devadhar, J.

1. The short point raised in this petition is whether the assessing officer after issuance of notice for regular assessment under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was justified in issuing intimation under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961

2. The assessment year relevant for the present petition is 1989-1990.

3. On December 29, 1989 the petitioner No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee') filed its return of income for AY 1989-90 inter alia claiming deduction of Rs. 1,01,15,244/- being the expenditure on acquiring technical know-how as revenue expenditure. An intimation under Section 143(1)(a) was issued by the assessing officer on April 16, 1990 accepting the return.

4. The said intimation was rectified by the assessing officer under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act by disallowing the expenditure on technical know-how on the ground that the same is capitalised. Thereupon, the assessee on March 26, 1991 filed revised return seeking reduction under Section 32, 32A and 35AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by treating the expenditure incurred on acquisition of technical know-how as acquisition of the plant.

5. On July 5, 1991 the assessing officer issued notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act calling upon the assessee to attend his office with documents and evidence in support of the claim made in the revised return. By its reply dated August 1, 1991, the petitioners placed on record their submission in support of their claim made in the revised return.

6. Instead of passing a regular assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the assessing officer issued intimation dated July 29, 1991 under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax, 1961 making adjustments without considering the claim of the assessee. The said intimation dated July 29, 1991 is challenged in the present petition.

7. Mr. Pardiwala, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Gujarat Electricity Board : [2003]260ITR84(SC) , it was not open to the assessing officer to issue intimation under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act after issuance of the notice for regular assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the revenue fairly stated that in view of the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court, the intimation dated July 29, 1991 issued by the assessing officer under Section 143(1)(a) cannot be sustained.

9. Thus, the issue raised in the petition is squarely concluded by the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court. Accordingly, the petition succeeds. The impugned intimation dated July 29, 1991 (Exhibit 'H' to the petition) is quashed and set aside.

10. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) with no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //