9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 323X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that, the impugned notices are without jurisdiction. According to him, section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 can be invoked only when there is an error apparent on the face of the record. According to him, the assessment orders, in respect of which the impugned notices have been issued, cannot be said to contain any error on the face of the record. In the present case, the assessment for the assessment year 1991-92 was made on March 31, 1994. The assessment for the assessment year 1992-1993 was made on March 31, 1995 and the assessment in respect of the assessment year 1993-94 was made on March 29, 1996. The impugned notices were issued on March 21, 2000. The petitioner set up new units at the tea garden for the period from 1991 to 199 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed. Moreover, when the issue is debatable, the same cannot be invoked. In support of such contention, he has relied upon 2012 Volume 24 taxman.com 46 (Cal) (Md. Serajuddin & Bros. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax). He submitted that, a judgment of the Supreme Court does not obliterate a debate. In support of such contention, he has relied upon 1981 Volume 130 Income Tax Report page 710 (Jiyajeerao Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Income-Tax Officer, "C" Ward, Companies District I, Calcutta & Ors.). Subsequent exposition of law cannot form basis of a rectification proceedings and in support of such contention he has relied upon 2003 Volume 237 Income Tax Reports page 237 (Geo Miller and Co. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors.). He has submitt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e notices rather than coming to the writ Court. It cannot be said that, the impugned notices suffers from inherent lack of jurisdiction. Brooke Bond Lipton India Limited (supra) was rendered under a different statute. The judgment of the jurisdictional High Court is binding upon the authorities. The decision rendered by the Calcutta High Court is binding upon the authorities. Therefore there is no infirmity in the issuance of the show cause notices. According to him, there is no debate on any issue. As to what constitutes a debatable issue, he has relied upon 1986 Volume 159 Income Tax Report page 362 (Cal) (Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Purtabpore Co. Ltd.). He has submitted that, the basis for invocation of section 154 of the Act of 1961 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d mind for a Court to interfere at the show cause notice stage. Interference by the Court at the show cause notice stage is an exception. If it is contended that, the legal premises upon which the show cause notices have been founded are without any basis, then the same would constitute a jurisdictional fact which should ideally be left to the authority to decide at the first stage. In Indo Asahi Glass Company Limited and another (supra) the writ petition against the show cause notice was dismissed by the single judge on the ground that, alternative remedy was available. In appeal, the Division Bench held the same view. The Supreme Court held that, the High Court was right in coming to the conclusion that, it is appropriate for the writ pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... industan Petroleum Corporation Limited (supra) has noticed that, the procedure of blending of different qualities of tea would amount to processing of tea, and it did not amount to manufacture or production of tea. Apeejay (supra) was rendered on September 10, 1991. It is a judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court. It is binding upon the authorities within the jurisdiction of the High Court. The assessment orders for the relevant assessment years therefore were wrong when they allowed the deductions. The assessment orders were passed subsequent to September 10, 1991. The assessment order for the assessment year 1991-92 was passed on March 31, 1994, the assessment order for the assessment year 1992-93 was passed on March 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted unit engaged in blending, packing and export of tea bags and tea packets. The fact scenario obtaining in the present case is different. Harbans Lal Malhotra & Sons Private Ltd. (supra) has interpreted the expression 'machinery' and 'plant'. It has held that, where interpretation of words are required to arrive at a finding then, it cannot be said that, there exists any mistake apparent on the face of the record allowing invocation of Section 154 of the Act of 1961. In the present case, no further interpretation is required in view of the settled position of law rendered by Apeejay (supra). Md. Serajuddin & Bros. (supra) has held that, where, the issue is debatable, the same cannot be made a ground for rectification under Section 154 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
