1991 (4) TMI 24

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... in orders passed in its case for certain assessment years and for which a writ petition was also filed earlier in this court. The other complaint Is that the respondents were not legally justified in adjusting the refunds due to the second petitioner against the individual demands of the first petitioner, which fell due against him because of the protective assessment orders for the assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86 and, thus, the refunds are wrongly being withheld. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, in our opinion, the writ petition is liable to be rejected summarily. It appears that, while assessments of the first petitioner for the assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86 were pending, where he had disclosed taxable income of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ntly, the claim for refunds could not be denied to it. The stand taken by the petitioners is seriously controverted by the respondents in the counter-affidavit filed on their behalf. According to the respondents, the disputed assessments are substantive and, in any case, they do not lose their character of regular assessments merely because the expression "protective" was used in the assessment orders in a different context, namely, to convey that the assessments were without prejudice to the right of the Revenue to proceed against any other person. In the counter-affidavit, the respondents have also categorically stated that the income assessed in the hands of the first petitioner has not been brought to tax in the hands of any other pers .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... itten by the second petitioner was to the following effect : "This is to confirm that we do not have any objection if you adjust the refund due to the company together with interest for the assessment year 1980-81 for meeting your demands against Shri Satish Chand Singhal, the managing director of the company, since the company owes around Rs. 20 lakhs to Shri Singhal on account of unsecured accommodation credit given by him to the company from time to time." It is evident that the adjustment of the refunds was carried out at the instance of the petitioners themselves, and we see no illegality in the same. There exists no justification to permit the petitioners at this stage of proceedings to resile from their earlier stand and that too on .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X