1999 PLP 554 (PTD)
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus K. R. CHENNI KRISHNA CHETTY
| Citation | 1999 PLP 554 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | 225 I T R 234 |
| Bench Members | K. A. Thanikkachalam and N. V. Balasubramanian, JJ |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus K. R. CHENNI KRISHNA CHETTY |
| Primary Law | Income-tax |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999 PLP 554 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Income-tax as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1999 PLP 554 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the 225 I T R 234 bench comprising: K. A. Thanikkachalam and N. V. Balasubramanian, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1999 PLP 554 (PTD) (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus K. R. CHENNI KRISHNA CHETTY). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
Reassessment
Extended period of limitation- Assessment under S.143 and under S.147 are different
Extended period of limitation under S.153 is not available in case of reassessment
Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 143, 147 &
153. The assessment made under section 143 and the assessment made under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are two different assessments and they are not one and the same. When the assessment is made in pursuance of an order under section 144-B the extended time-limit as contemplated under section 153 would not be available in making the assessment under section 147 of the Act. C.I.T. v. Sundaram Spinning Mills (1997) 225 I T R 214 (Mad.) fol. C. V. Rajan for the Commissioner. P. P. S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee
Judgment & Decree
K. A. THANIKKACHALAM, J.
At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following question for the opinion of this Court under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961: Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct and justified in law in holding that the expression 'an assessment to be made under section 143(3)' used in section 144-B, is confined only to the assessment to be made under section 143 and does not cover reassessments to be made under section 147 of the Income-tax Act with the consequence that the procedure prescribed under section, 144-B and extended, time-limit provided in the Explanation to section 153 is not available to reassessments to be made under section 147?" The point for consideration is whether the expression "an assessment to be made under section 143(3): used in section 144-B is confined only to the assessment to be made under section 143 and does not cover reassessments to be made under section 147 of the Income-tax Act with the consequence that the procedure prescribed under section 144-B and extended time-limit provided in the Explanation to section 153 is not available to reassessment to be made under section
147. A similar question came up for consideration before this Court in Tax Case Nos.573 to 575 of 1983 in the case of Sundaram Spinning Mills, Madras Aluminium Co. Ltd. and Gordhandas Bhagwandas (1997) 225 I T R 214, wherein by judgment, dated April 23, 1996, this Court held that the assessment made under section 143 and the assessment made under section 147 of the Income-tax Act are two different assessments end they are not one and the same. When the assessment is made in pursuance of an order under section 144-B, the extended time-limit as contemplated under section 153 would not be available in making the assessment under section
147. In view of the earlier decisions of this Court cited supra, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and against the Department. No costs. M.B.A./1717/FC Reference answered.