TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (12) TMI 17
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erred to as "the said Act"), and further writ in the nature of mandamus commanding respondent No. 2 to grant approval under section 80HHC(2)(a) of the said Act beyond six months to forbear from giving effect to the amendment in respect of section 80HHC(2)(a) with effect from June 1, 1999, by the Finance Act, 1999, and also to dispose of the application filed by the petitioner for extension of time for repatriation of balance export value beyond six months. The facts of the case briefly are as follows Petitioner No. 1 is a private limited company. Petitioner No. 1 supplied materials in terms of an order received at Rs. 40,19,677.69. The petitioner earned an export profit of Rs. 27,08,787. Petitioner No. 1 claimed deduction of the said amo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Officer had no jurisdiction in the matter to decide the same. Accordingly, it is submitted that the said Assessing Officer passed such order without any jurisdiction. It is further the case of the petitioner that the petitioner applied before the Commissioner of Income-tax for extension of time for bringing the balance export proceeds beyond the period of six months on February 16, 2001, March 5, 2001 and March 16, 2001, by their letters. The Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal-IV, returned the petitioners' application for extension of time for repatriation of sale proceeds by a letter dated March 22/23, 2001. According to the petitioner, the change brought in by the Finance Act, 1999, was with effect from June 1, 1999, and such c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Cal) and contended that the court was-pleased to direct the Commissioner to dispose of the application filed by the petitioner on the merits. Mr. Som, appearing on behalf of the respondents, contended that the petitioner has suppressed material facts from this court. He also submitted that on December 6, 1993, the petitioner filed a return of income. On September 8, 1994, notice under section 143(2) of the said Act was issued, processing under section 143(1)(a) was made on November 23, 1994, and then on October 18, 1995, notice under section 143(2) was issued to petitioner No. 1. Further on December 5, 1995, notice under section 143(2) was again issued and thereafter, on March 21, 1996, the Assessing Officer passed the order under sectio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by the petitioner on May 18, 2001. Mr. Som submitted that all these facts were suppressed from this court. He further contended that the petitioner subsequent to the filing of the writ petition filed a supplementary affidavit affirmed on June 25, 2001, when for the first time the matter came up before this court and such point of suppression was taken by the respondent authorities. He further drew my attention to the said affidavit and contended that the petitioner has only filed the said document by way of the said supplementary affidavit after filing the petition in this court. He further contended that an application under section 155(13) of the said Act was also filed by the petitioner. It has been specifically informed to the p....