Legal Case Summary

Case Details
Case ID 4082446d-7845-482a-b44f-ca7a825d5a24
Body View case body.
Case Number CW NOS. 4997, 5010 AND 5062 OF 2005
Decision Date Dec 15, 2006
Hearing Date
Decision The High Court held that the time-limit for the completion of assessments under Section 153(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was not applicable as the entire assessment had not been set aside, but only part of the assessment order was remanded back to the Assessing Officer. It was decided that if the Assessing Officer is unduly slow in completing the assessment, the assessee may approach the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 seeking a direction for an expeditious end to the inquiry. The writ petition was dismissed as meritless, emphasizing that the petitioners had delayed in filing their petitions to avoid payment of income tax on technical grounds that did not exist in their favor.
Summary The case of Basu Distributors (P.) Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer revolves around the interpretation of the Income Tax Act, 1961, particularly Section 153 concerning the time limits for assessments. The Delhi High Court examined whether the time limit under Section 153(2A) was applicable when only part of an assessment was remanded. The Court ruled that the entire assessment was not set aside, allowing the Assessing Officer to continue the proceedings. This case highlights the importance of understanding procedural timelines in tax assessments and the avenues available for assessees to seek redress. The ruling also underscores the necessity for prompt actions by tax authorities to avoid unnecessary delays. This case is significant for taxpayers facing similar issues with tax assessments and the legal interpretations surrounding them.
Court Delhi High Court
Entities Involved Not available
Judges VIKRAMAJIT SEN, DR. S. MURALIDHAR
Lawyers Y.K. Kapoor for the Petitioner, J.R. Goel for the Respondent
Petitioners Basu Distributors (P.) Ltd.
Respondents Income-tax Officer, Ward 2(3), New Delhi
Citations 2007 SLD 3794, (2007) 292 ITR 29, [2007] 159 TAXMAN 410 (DELHI)
Other Citations National Institute of Immunology v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi AIR 2002 Delhi 192, Chemical Sales Corpn. v. New Delhi Municipal Council 1996 V AD (Delhi) 89, Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. v. New Delhi Municipal Council 1996 III AD (Delhi) 299, Shyam Kishore v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi AIR 1992 SC 2279, D.R. Aggarwal v. New Delhi Municipal Committee 1998 (47) DRJ (DB), L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India AIR 1997 SC 1125, State of H.P. v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd.AIR 2005 SC 3936, Jiyajeerao Cotton Mills Ltd. v. ITO [1977] 107 ITR 253 (Cal.), Dhanaraj Singh & Co. v. CIT[1996] 218 ITR 312 (Pat.), Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 191 (SC), Daffdar Bhagat Singh & Sonsv. ITO [1969] 71 ITR 417 (SC), Mercury Travels Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2002] 258 ITR 533 (Cal.), T.S. Santhanam v.Expenditure Tax Officer [1973] 87 ITR 582 (Mad.), S. Chattanatha Karayalar v. Excess Profits Tax Officer [1973] 92 ITR 384 (Mad.), M.M. Stores v. A.K. Bandopadhyay 66 CWN 170, Panama (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [1971] 82 ITR 205 (Cal.), Rajinder Nath v. CIT [1979] 120 ITR 14/2 Taxman 204 (SC), Prem Nath Mayor v. CIT [1984] 148 ITR 588/19 Taxman 77(Punj. & Har.), CIT v. Dhanpatram Chhotelal [1985] 156 ITR 682/[1986] 27 Taxman 507 (Pat.), CIT v. Mohini Thapar Charitable Trust [1986] 160 ITR 408/26 Taxman 542 (Cal.), Kulamani Deo, DIG of Police v. CIT [1993] 204 ITR 693/[1994] 73 Taxman 287 (Ori.), Gulabchand Motilal v. CIT [1988] 174 ITR 117/[1987] 34 Taxman 456 (MP), CIT v. Jodhana Real Estate Development Corpn. (P.) Ltd. [2004] 190 CTR (Raj.) 124, Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1992] 196 ITR 903/[1991] 59 Taxman 492 (All.), Rikhabdas Jhaverchand v. CIT [2002] 120 Taxman 206 (Bom.), R.K. Sawhney Executor of the Estate of Late R.B. Nathuram v. CIT [1987] 166 ITR 128/32 Taxman 546 (Delhi), Smt. Mohammadi Begum v. CIT [1986] 158 ITR 662/27 Taxman 247 (AP), Estate of Late Rangalal Jajodia v. CIT [1971] 79 ITR 505 (SC)
Laws Involved Income Tax Act, 1961
Sections 153, 143