9911796707
TMI Blog1971 (4) TMI 29X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e-tax Act, 1922, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax. The assessee in this case is M/s. Brij Transport Company Ltd., Saharanpur, and the assessment year involved is 1956-57. The company was assessed to income-tax for the assessment year 1956-57, by an order dated 16th July, 1957. The total income of the company was computed at Rs. 30,274 and the tax payable was determined as Rs. 13, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... year. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, however, rejected the contention of the assessee and held that there was no time limit applicable to the orders passed under section 23A of the Act after its amendment in 1955. The assessee then went up in appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and raised two contentions. In support of its contention that the order under section 23A of the Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d contention raised on behalf of the assessee. On the finding that the proceedings under section 23A of the Act were barred by time, the Tribunal set aside the order made by the Income-tax Officer. At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, the Tribunal has referred the following question for the opinion of this court : " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cribed under section 34(3) did not apply. The decision of the Supreme Court is reported as M. M. Parikh v. Navanagar Transport and Industries Ltd. In view of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court mentioned above, the question referred to us for opinion is answered in the negative and in favour of the Commissioner of Income-tax. We hold that an order under section 23A of the Act after its amendme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
