TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (9) TMI 83
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Chandigarh Housing Board is the petitioner. On January 29, 2001, the petitioner was served with a notice under section 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It was asked to file its return of income for the assessment year 2000-01. A copy of the notice dated January 29, 2001, is at annexure P-4. The petitioner sent its reply vide letter dated February 15, 2001. On March 23, 2001, the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (TDS) - respondent No. 3, issued notice to the various banks directing them to deduct tax at source on the deposits made by the petitioner. A copy of this notice is at annexure P-9. On June 18, 2001, the petitioner was served with another notice, a copy of which is at annexure P-7. It was called upon to show cause as to why ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tal and B.B. Bagga contended that the notices do not conform to the requirements of section 142. The income of the petitioners being exempt from tax, the provisions of sections 139 and 142 are not attracted. Similarly, the directions for deduction of tax at source as issued by the Revenue are wholly illegal. The claim made on behalf of the petitioners was controverted by Mr. R.P. Sawhney, learned counsel for the Revenue. He submitted that the petitioners have receipts beyond the minimum prescribed under the Act. They are bound to file their respective returns. The matter shall be considered and decided by the competent authority in accordance with law. At this stage, the petitions are wholly premature. The short question that arises f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the competent authority in the light of the evidence that may be placed on record by the petitioners. If the petitioners succeed in proving that their income falls within the exemption contemplated under section 10(20A), their claim is likely to be accepted. However, the decision has to be taken by the authority under the Act. Not by this court. At least, not for the present. Learned counsel for the petitioners referred to various provisions of the Act to contend that the objectives and functions of the board/authority are related to housing. The claim was controverted by counsel for the respondents. After hearing counsel for the parties, we feel that it shall not be appropriate for us to express any opinion at this stage as the relev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Act to refuse to file a return on the ground that its income is exempt under one or the other provision of the Act. It may be open to every businessman to say that his entire income is from agriculture. An industrialist might claim that on account of recession, he has suffered loss and thus, it is not necessary for him to file any return. In our view, a person has to file a return when called upon to do so. Thereafter, the matter has to be considered and decided by the competent authority. Counsel for the petitioners referred to the decisions in Orissa State Warehousing Corporation v. CIT [1999] 237 ITR 589 (SC) and Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation v. CIT [1997] 227 ITR 414 (SC). On the other hand, counsel for the Revenue pla....