Delhi High Court
Vikram Overseas (P.) Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax And ... on 17 January, 1996
Equivalent citations: 1996 222 ITR 253 Delhi
Author: A D Singh
Bench: A D Singh
JUDGMENT
Anil Dev Singh, J.
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter can be disposed of in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Ajanta Electricals [1995] 215 ITR 114.
2. The petitioner is an exporter of garments. The assessment year in question is 1991-92 which ended on March 31, 1991. On November 26, 1991, it filed an application seeking extension of time up to December 31, 1991, for bringing foreign exchange into India in respect of the export which it had made. The petitioner thereafter filed another application dated December 11, 1991, reiterating its earlier request for extension of time.
3. According to section 80HHC(2)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the assessee is required to bring into India sale proceeds of goods in convertible foreign exchange within a period of six months from the end of the previous year or within such further period as the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner of Income-tax may permit. It is not disputed that the statutory period of six months in the case had already expired on September 30, 1991, when the petitioner moved the application on November 26, 1991, for extension of time. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax felt that since there was no provision for extension of time in a case where the application was moved after the said period of six months, he rejected the application of the petitioner on January 18, 1993. Thereafter, the petitioner moved the present writ petition challenging the said order of the Commissioner, dated January 18, 1993.
4. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Ajanta Electricals [1995] 215 ITR 114, the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax needs to be set aside. In the aforesaid decision, the Supreme Court observed as under (page 123) :
"We hold that the view taken by the Punjab and Haryana High Court is these cases and by the Calcutta High Court in Sundardas Thacker say and Bros. v. CIT [1982] 137 ITR 646 is correct and the contrary view taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in T. Venkata Krishnaiah and Co. v. CIT [1974] 93 ITR 297, the Gauhati High Court in Assam Frontier Veneer and Saw Mills v. CIT [1976] 104 ITR 479 and the Patna High Court in CIT v. S.P. Viz. Construction Co. [1987] 165 ITR 732 is not correct. The application made by the assessees under section 139(2) for extension of time after the expiry of the time allowed were maintainable and, therefore, valid. We, therefore, dismiss the appeals but pass no order as to costs."
5. Having regard to the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi, dated January 18, 1993, is set aside. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax will now decide the application in accordance with law and in the light of the order of the Supreme Court.
