High CourtsDivision Bench(1990) 09 AHC CK 0022

Pandit Pyare Lal Sharma Memorial Trust Society vs Union of India (UOI) and Others

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 10 September 1990 · Citation: (1991) 190 ITR 432

HON’BLE JUDGES
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J · G.K. Mathur, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 1952 of 1988

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

2 paragraphs · 352 words

B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.—This writ petition is filed by Pandit Pyare Lal Sharma Memorial Trust Society, Meerut, for quashing the assessment orders dated March 28, 1988, March 30, 1989, and October 20, 1990, passed in the case of Moot Chand Sharbati Devi Hospital Trust, Meerut, on the ground that the observations made therein are prejudicial to the interests of the petitioner. On a writ petition being filed, this court did not think it fit to call upon the respondents to file a counter-affidavit. The writ petition was, however, kept pending. Meanwhile, the Commissioner of Income Tax has issued a notice u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act proposing to revive the assessment order dated March 19, 1987, which is the assessment order made in the case of the petitioner''s own case. In the said assessment order, the Income Tax Officer has accepted the petitioner''s contention and treated his income as nil. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the Commissioner''s notice u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act is based upon adverse observations made in the assessment orders of Mool Chand Sharbati Devi Hospital Trust, Meerut, which are not relevant for exercising power under suction 263. Be that as it may, it was open to the petitioner to have submitted an explanation to the said notice and if any orders adverse to him are passed, the statute gives him a right of appeal to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indeed, as per Section 263, orders in pursuance of the notice dated December 6, 1988, must have been passed on or before March 31, 1989 (see the limitation prescribed in Sub-section (2) of Section 263). If any such orders have been passed, the petitioner has a remedy by way of appeal which he can always avail of, if not already availed of. If no orders have been passed within the period prescribed in pursuance of the notice dated December 6, 1988, the notice may itself fall to the ground.

2.

In the above situation, no orders are called for in this writ petition. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.