TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 727X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AND N. RAVI SHANKAR, JJ. K. Vivek Reddy for the Petitioner. J.V. Prasad for the Respondent. ORDER N. Ravi Shankar, J. The parties to both these writ petitions are same and having regard to the similar points raised in both, they can be disposed of by this common order. 2. Both these writ petitions pertain to grant of further time for completion of income tax assessments of a software company called Satyam Computer Services Limited in respect of two assessment years (AY). W.P. No. 21950 of 2011 pertains to AY 2002-03 and W.P.No.21948 of 2011 pertains to AY 2007-08. The relief claimed in W.P.No.21950 of 2011 is as follows. "a. extend the time-limit prescribed in S. 153 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for completion of assessment for AY 2002-03 i.e. 19-08-2011 by 6 months from the date of Petitioner obtaining access to the documents in the custody of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI); b. direct the Assessing Officer to pass an assessment order only after giving sufficient opportunity to the Petitioner to furnish all the necessary information and detailed explanations called for by the Assessing Officer after the Petitioner obtains documents under t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pon it to furnish certain additional information in respect of both the assessment years in question. 6. It must be noted here now that following detection of some alleged fraud in fudging of accounts and embezzlement by the previous management of Satyam Computers, the Central Bureau of investigation (CBI) investigated the matter and filed charge sheet against some of the persons who were then in management of the said company in a special court at Hyderabad for various offences. It is the plea of the petitioner that the CBI has seized the material records which contain the information called for by the assessing authority for both the assessment years and they have been deposited by the said agency in the said court trying the criminal case while some of the documents are with it. It is the further plea of the petitioner that some of the records have been seized by the Directorate of Intelligence also, and the Central Board of Direct Taxes has also dealt with the matter and passed certain orders regarding the assessments of Satyam Computers and the assessing authority is acting in violation of those orders but it is not necessary to go into the same having regard to the reliefs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtain additional information and the Satyam Computers already furnished it and later on certain clarifications were called for through subsequent letters. 10. The version of the respondent is that it initially issued notices dated 27.03.2009 in respect of both the assessment year 2007-08 also calling for additional information and the petitioner company gave the information and therefore the petitioner company's present plea that it requires the records from the CBI and the special court to give clarifications is an invented one and cannot be accepted. The respondent in its counters stated that the petitioner company gave information in part and in piece meal on various dates from 26.08.2009 to 02.08.2011 in respect of both the assessment years and gave their details also and the present writ petitions are filed only to drag on the matter. It is also urged that in a case like this there is no provision under the Act to extend time for completion of the assessment which is fixed by the statute and this court cannot under Article 226 of the Constitution extend the time for giving opportunity to the petitioner. 11. Subsequently Sri K. Vivek Reddy filed certain additional documents ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 262, 263 or 264 of the Act the assessment can be completed at any time. Sections 250, 254, 260, 262, 263 and 264 of the Act deal with appellate and revisional remedies provided under the Act. We are not concerned with this first part as it is not applicable here. Then the second part of Section 153(3)(ii) says that an assessment or reassessment can be completed at any time to give effect to any finding or direction contained in an order of any court in a proceeding otherwise than by way of appeal or reference under this Act (emphasis supplied). 16. The contention of Sri Vivek Reddy is that the present two writ petitions can be said to be proceedings under the aforementioned second part of Section 153(3)(ii) of the Act and, therefore, this court having regard to the pleas of the petitioner can extend the time and grant the reliefs prayed for as there is, according to him, every justification for extension of time. On the other hand, the contention of Sri J.V. Prasad is that these writ petitions are filed only for the relief of extension of time and therefore they cannot fall under the above provision unless they raise some question or questions regarding the assessments and the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tional information called for as in the present case. The Supreme Court had no occasion in the above case to deal with this aspect. It is settled position that a court cannot extend the time limit prescribed by a statute for doing of a certain act or thing under the said statute unless some provision is made for extension of time in the statute itself and the authority which is given that power has wrongly refused to extend the time. In view of this legal position, the fact that an assessee may have difficulties of his own in furnishing information called for by the assessing authority cannot therefore be made a ground for extending the time by this court under Article 226. The mere justification for extending the time cannot also be a ground to extend the time for completion of assessment when the statute does not provide for it. Thus the contention of Sri J.V. Prasad based on the second decision cited by him and which is on the scope of Section 153(3)(ii) of the Act has to be accepted. 20. On the other hand, Sri Vivek Reddy relied upon another decision of Supreme Court given in the Director of Inspection v. Pooran Mal Sons [1974] 96 ITR 390 in support of his contention. This ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
