TMI Blog1961 (2) TMI 92X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted some time in November 1956. Prior to 1956, the petitioner had been assessed in India in respect of those years, and the income earned by it in Ceylon was also included in the tax levied on it in respect of those years. The petitioner, therefore, field and application before the Income-tax Officer Companies Circle the first respondent herein claiming relief against double taxation and praying that the amount due to it on this ground be refunded to it. The first respondent by his order dated 27th December, 1956, rejected its application on the ground that it was barred by time. Against this order of the first respondent the petitioner moved the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 33A(a)(ii) in revision. This revision application was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4, 1959 to the first respondent requesting him to set off the amounts of the aforesaid refunds, to which he was entitled against the demand of ₹ 4,73,740. This application of the petitioner was rejected by the first respondent on 29th October, 1959. It appears that thereafter the petitioner moved the Central Board of Revenue to obtain this relief. But the Central Board of Revenue rejected the petitioners application on 24th June, 1960. The petitioner has now moved this court by an application under article 226 of the Constitution of Indian wherein it prays that this court be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or other writ direction or order directing the respondents to set off the amounts of refund due to the petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut even assuming that what is being challenged is orders of the income-tax authorities rejecting the petitioners application for grant of set-off even then, there is delay without a satisfactory explanation coming forth. It is an admitted position that the petitioners application for grant of set-off was rejected by the first respondent on 29th October, 1959, and the petitioner has approached this court on 13th October, 1960 nearly after a year. The explanation given is that in between the petitioner had moved the Central Board of Revenue and the order made by the Board was on 24th June, 1960. It has not been shown that the statute provided any application to the Central Board of Revenue against the order of the first respondent. The petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
