9911796707
TMI Blog1971 (12) TMI 14X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Board of Revenue under section 34(1B) for a settlement of the matter relating to the assessment for the years 1940-41 to 1946-47. The proposed settlement was accepted by the Central Board of Revenue and an order was passed under section 34(1B) of the Act on November 19, 1955. Under the terms of the settlement, the total income of the assessee was held to be Rs. 65,05,053. In the settlement the money payable was held to be Rs. 44,06,672. Out of this amount Rs. 16,06,672 having already been collected, a sum of Rs. 28 lakhs remained to be paid. There was a clause in the settlement which required the assessee to pay a further sum. It runs as follows : " It is further agreed that depreciation allowance of Rs. 4,45,603 having been granted in re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arned single judge holding that no injury was caused by the impugned order to the petitioners, refused to exercise the jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution in favour of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended before us that section 3 4(1B) did not permit a second quantification and that it could not in any case be made by the Income-tax Officer and as there is no quantification made by the Central Board of Revenue and there is no order specifying the amount under section 34(1B), the amount is not recoverable. His further contention is that the amount could be got specified by the Central Government only through the machinery of the court by filing a civil suit and not otherwise. His last contention ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f clause 7 of the settlement. The amount was of course not specified as it was on that date not practicable to quantify the amount. The amount was payable only if there was an appreciation in the value of the shares. It was impossible to know if there would be any appreciation in value and, if so, to what extent. Once the value of the shares appreciated, liability of the petitioner to pay the amount in terms of clause 7 of the settlement arose by virtue of the settlement and pursuant to that liability the assessee paid the sum covered by it. It is now in equity not open to the assessees to claim a writ to direct a refund of an amount which the assessee was bound to pay. There is no allegation in the petition to show that the amount compute ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
