TMI Blog2003 (3) TMI 96X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e money which was paid as provisional tax became returnable on the date on which the right of the Revenue authorities to make a regular assessment under section 12 came to an end. Assuming that there was a right in the respondent-assessee to reclaim this money, such a right ought to have been exercised within a period of three years under the residuary article 137 of the Limitation Act, after which even such a right must be held to be barred. There is no doubt that by the time the assessee asserted his so called right, even this period had expired in respect of the assessment years in question. The contention based on article 265 of the Constitution also must, therefore, fail. - - - - - Dated:- 25-3-2003 - Judge(s) : MRS. RUMA PAL., B. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . On January 4, 1978, and January 31, 1978 (even before the High Court had disposed of the references made at the instance of the Revenue), the respondent-assessee by its applications claimed refund of the tax paid by it under the provisional assessment orders. This claim for refund was rejected by the Assessing Officer who took the view that there was no question of merger of the provisional assessment with the regular assessment and that even if the regular assessment orders were quashed, the provisional assessment order would stand independently. This view was upheld by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as also by an order dated March 8, 1983, made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The assessee impugned the orders of the Tri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xpiry of the accounting period which constitutes or includes the chargeable accounting period in respect of which the claim to such refund arises. In Narsee Nagsee and Co.'s case [1960] 40 ITR 307, it was held by this court that this modified section 50 furnishes a key as to when a notice under section 11(1) of the Act has to be given and that such notice must be given within the financial year which commences next after the expiry of the accounting period or the previous year which by itself includes the chargeable accounting period in question. It is precisely because the application for refund on the part of the assessee had become time barred under rule 4A, that the High Court held that the regular assessment under section 12 of the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... making an application for refund or return of the money prior to the date. He, therefore, urges that the provisions of section 50 of the 1922 Act as modified by rule 4A, cannot strictly be applied in such a case. The respondent must fail even assuming the contention of Mr. Verma, based on article 265 of the Constitution to be valid. We are of the view that the money which was paid as provisional tax became returnable on the date on which the right of the Revenue authorities to make a regular assessment under section 12 came to an end. Assuming that there was a right in the respondent-assessee to reclaim this money, such a right ought to have been exercised within a period of three years under the residuary article 137 of the Limitation Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
