| Case ID |
42183a51-661a-4bd6-b09c-ad7f86d10c4d |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
IT REFERENCE Nos. 68 OF 1987 AND 275 OF 1991 |
| Decision Date |
Sep 30, 2005 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The Allahabad High Court ruled that section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act is not applicable to income-tax proceedings under section 146 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. This decision was based on the observation that the Income-tax Officer acts as a quasi-judicial authority and is not a court. The court emphasized that the application for reopening of assessment must be filed within the prescribed time, and there is no provision for condonation of delay under the Income-tax Act. Thus, the application filed by the assessee was deemed to be time-barred, and the earlier decisions by lower authorities were set aside in favor of the revenue. The ruling highlights the importance of adhering strictly to statutory timelines in tax assessments. |
| Summary |
In the landmark case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Bajrang Dal Mills, the Allahabad High Court addressed a crucial question regarding the applicability of section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, in income-tax proceedings. The court found that the provisions of the Limitation Act do not apply to applications made under section 146 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. This case emphasizes the importance of timely filing of applications for reopening tax assessments and clarifies that the Income-tax Officer does not function as a court, thus limiting the scope for condonation of delays. The judgment has significant implications for tax professionals and entities dealing with income tax assessments, as it underscores the need for strict compliance with statutory deadlines. The ruling aligns with previous Supreme Court decisions that delineate the boundaries of the Limitation Act's applicability in quasi-judicial contexts, ensuring that taxpayers and their representatives remain vigilant in meeting prescribed timelines. This case serves as a critical reference point for similar future litigations involving tax assessments and procedural compliance. |
| Court |
Allahabad High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Bajrang Dal Mills
|
| Judges |
R.K. AG RAWAL,
PRAKASH KRISHNA
|
| Lawyers |
Shambhu Chopra
|
| Petitioners |
Commissioner of Income Tax
|
| Respondents |
Bajrang Dal Mills
|
| Citations |
2006 SLD 3466,
(2006) 282 ITR 44
|
| Other Citations |
CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd. [1973] 88 ITR 192 (SC),
A. Gupta Trust Estate v. CWT [1984] 148 ITR 366 (Gauhati),
Anwari Basavaraj Patil v. Siddaramaiah [1993] 1 SCC 636,
CIT v. Naga Hills Tea Co. Ltd. [1973] 89 ITR 236 (SC),
CIT v. Subhash Chand Goyal [2001] 251 ITR 728 (All.),
CST v. Parson Tools and Plants AIR 1975 SC 1039; [1975] 35 STC 413 (SC),
Damodaran Pillai v. South Indian Bank Ltd. AIR 2005 SC 3460; [2005] 8 JT 197 SC,
Deen Dayal Goyal v. ITAT [1986] 158 ITR 391 (Delhi),
Gopal Sardar v. Karuna Sardar [2004] 4 SCC 252,
L.S. Synthetics Ltd. v. Fairgrowth Financial Services Ltd. [2004] 122 Comp. Cas. 185 (SC),
Mangu v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1976 SC 176,
Mukri Gopalan v. Cheppilat Puthanpurayil Aboobacker [1995] 5 SCC 5,
Nihalkaran v. CWT [1987] 168 ITR 508 (MP)(FB),
Nityanand M. Joshi v. Life Insurance Corporation of India [1970] 1 SCR 396; AIR 1970 SC 209; [1969] 36 FJR 324 (SC),
R. Rudraiah v. State of Karnataka AIR 1998 SC 1070; [1998] 1 JT 435 (SC),
Sakuru v. Tanaji AIR 1985 SC 1279,
Smt. R.V. Sarojini Devi v. IAC of IT [2000] 242 ITR 329 (Mad.),
Shamrao V. Parulekar v. District Magistrate AIR 1952 SC 324,
B. Subba Rao v. IAC of IT [1987] 167 ITR 757 (AP),
Smt. Sushila Devi v. Ramanandan Prasad [1976] 2 SCR 845; AIR 1976 SC 177,
Tirath Singh v. Bachittar Singh AIR 1955 SC 830,
Town Municipal Council v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court [1970] 1 SCR 51; AIR 1969 SC 1335; [1969] 36 FJR 177 (SC),
K. Venkaiah v. K. Venkateswara Rao AIR 1978 AP 166,
Vidyacharan Shukla v. Khubchand Baghal [1964] 6 SCR 129,
CCE v. Salora International Ltd. (Central Excise Reference Application No. 4 of 2001 dated 13-9-2005),
CIT v. Data Software Research Co. Ltd. [2001] 247 ITR 207 (SC),
CIT v. Orissa Concrete & Allied Industries Ltd. [2003] 264 ITR 186 (Cal.),
Fairgrowth Investments Ltd. v. Custodian [2004] 11 SCC 472; [2004] 122 Comp. Cas. 683 (SC),
Hukumdev Narain Yadav v. Lalit Narain Mishra AIR 1974 SC 480; [1974] 2 SCC 133,
IAC of IT (Acquisition) v. Kedar Nath Jhunjhunwalla [1982] 133 ITR 746 (Patna),
Sheo Prasad Vinod Kumar v. Union of India [2001] 248 ITR 619 (All.)
|
| Laws Involved |
Income-tax Act, 1961,
Limitation Act, 1963
|
| Sections |
146,
5
|