1978 (8) TMI 61

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....making it within a reasonable time ?" The Tribunal answered the first question in the affirmative and the second in the negative. Hence, this reference at the instance of the CIT. In respect of various chargeable accounting periods ranging from 1st April, 1946, to 31st March, 1949, the ITO issued a notice under s. 11 of the Business Profits Tax Act, 1947, within a year, and so were provisional assessments made under s. 13 of the Act, the details whereof are as under. The regular assessments were, however, made nearly 20 years later on 30th December, 1969, for all these periods. The tax demand created by the provisional and the regular assessments is also indicated below. -------------------------------------------------------------....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....essment under s. 12 has to be made within four years of the end of the chargeable accounting period. In the alternative, it was held that 20 years was an unreasonably long period. The department has failed to justify the delay. The regular assessments were hence quashed. In CIT v. Narsee Nagsee & Co. [1960] 40 ITR 307, the Supreme Court by majority held that the notice under s. 11(1) of the Act ought to be issued within the financial year commencing next after the expiry of the accounting period. This conclusion was reached by a process of construction of ss. 11(1) and 14 of the Act read with s. 50 of the Indian I.T. Act as adapted by the Business Profits Tax Rules. Section 11(1) did not prescribe any period of limitation for issuing the....