TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (5) TMI 26
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., pursuant to the assessment order made under section 143(3)/148 dated November 29, 1991?" The brief facts of the case are as follows: The assessee/opposite party (hereinafter referred to as "the assessee") furnished a return declaring an income of Rs. 320 pursuant to a notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee also paid an advance tax of Rs. 1 lakh on March 30, 1989, and the said amount of advance tax paid by the assessee was claimed as refundable in the return of income filed on October 25, 1991. The Assecdng Officer completed the assessment under section 143(3)/148, in which, he observed that since the total income is deductible under section 80HHC, there is no escapement of income. He therefore, dropped the pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....language of section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Even otherwise, the assessee could claim a refund under section 237 read with section 239 within a period of 2 years prescribed in section 239 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was reduced to 1 year by the Finance Act, 1992, with effect from April 1, 1993. Since, the assessee was called upon to furnish a return by issue of a notice under section 148, the assessee claimed the refund by furnishing a return of income in compliance with the said notice under section 148. The claiming of such refund by filing a return pursuant to a notice under section 148 substantially complied with the requirements of sections 237 and 239 except that it also requires the assessee to claim the refund in the prescr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unt which was deposited by way of advance tax, was claimed. In the case of CIT v. Shelly Products [2003] 261 ITR 367, the apex court held that the assessee was not entitled to claim the refund of tax paid by way of advance tax or on self-assessment to the extent of liability of tax admitted. In the said case, the assessee filed the return admitting certain liability of tax and in pursuance thereof, assessment was made which was subsequently set aside and nullified, but the assessing authority failed to make fresh assessment. The apex court held that the assessee is entitled for the refund of the excess amount of tax, but not entitled for refund, which was admitted. In this view of the matter, the view of the apex court does not help to the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ngs for 1953-54 and 1954-55 were lawfully terminated by the Income-tax Officer. It is true that section 23 does not in express terms provide for closing the assessment proceedings with an order that no assessment would be levied. Though the assessee had offered an item of income for assessment as his, the Income-tax Officer came to the conclusion that it was the Hindu undivided family that was liable to be assessed on that income and not the assessee. It was a conclusion, whether it was right or wrong, that he had jurisdiction to reach; and once he reached that conclusion, he could not tax the assessee. In Esthuri Aswathiah v. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 539 (SC), their Lordships of the Supreme Court pointed out that the order 'No proceeding' termina....