The judgment of the court was delivered by
1 N. RAVI SHANKAR I.-The parties to both these writ petinons are same and having regard to the similar points raised in both, they can be disposed of by this common order.
2 Both these writ petitions pertain to grant of further time for completion of income-tax assessments of a software company called Satyam Computer Services Ltd. in respect of two assessment years (AY). W. P. No. 21950 of 2011 pertains to the assessment year 2002-03 and W. P. No. 21948 of 2011 pertains to the assessment year 2007-08. The relief claimed in W. P. No. 21950 of 2011 is as follows : .
"(a) extend the time-limit prescribed in section 153 of the Incometax Act, 1961, for completion of assessment for the assessment year 2002-03, Le., August 19, 2011, by 6 months from the date of petitioner obtaining access to the documents in the cust0dy of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) ;
(b) direct the Assessing Officer to pass an assessment order only after giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to furnish all 'the necessary information' and detailed explanations called for by, the Assessing Officer after the petitioner obtains documents Under the custody of Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and a reasonable time thereafter ;
(c) pass such other order(s) as this han'ble court deems fit and proper in the extraordinary circumstances of the case in the interests of justice."
A similar relief is claimed in W. P. No. 21948 of2011 also in respect of the assessment year 2007-08. Satyam Computers company subsequently went into trouble and it is represented that it was taken over by another company called Mahindra and it is now known as Mahindra Satyam. This latter company is said to be the petitioner in both these writ petitions.
The case of the petitioner is this. (for the assessment year 2002-03 and 3 also for the assessment year 2007 -as Satyam Computers filed its returns under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). The assessing authority reopened the assessments for both the years on certain grounds and called for additional information in respect of deductions and other claims made by Satyam Computers. It is the version of the petitioner that without completing the assessments of reassessments within the time prescribed Under the Act, the assessing 'authority also' ordered a special audit of accounts for both the assessment years without any basis.
It is then stated that the petitioner also challenged the action of the 4 assessing authority in ordering, special audits for the above two years by filing W. P. No. 17526 of 2011 in respect Of the assessment year 2002-03 and W. P. No. 17518 of 2011 in respect of the assessment year 2007-08 and they are pending in this court. It is also brought to our notice that the petitioner also filed W. P. No. 19622 of 2011 and W. P. No. 23255 of 2011 challenging the assessment of fictitious income and' on other points and they are also pending in this court. Sri K. Vivel Reddy the leaned counsel for the petitioner and Sri J. V. Prasad the learned standing counsel for the Income-tax Department have argued these two writ petitions with the plea that they can be disposed of independently notwithstanding the pendency of the aforesaid four other writ petitions.
The grievance of the petitioner is that after reopening of the assessments and after receipt of the special audit reports, the assessments in respect of both the assessment years were to be completed by August 19, 2011, but without doing that the assessing authority sent further letters dated June 23, 2011, June 24, 2011, July 4, 2011, and July 27, 2011, separately to the petitioner calling upon it to furnish certain additional information in respect of both the assessment years in question.
6 It must be noted here now that following detection of some alleged fraud in fudging of accounts and embezzlement by the previous management of Satyam Computers, the Central Bureau of investigation (CBI) investigated the matter and filed charge sheet against some of the persons who were then in management of the said company in a special court at Hyderabad for various offences. It is the plea of the petitioner that the CBI has seized the material records which contain the information called for by the assessing authority for both the assessment years and they have been deposited by the said agency in the said court trying the criminal case while some of the documents are with it. It is the further plea of the petitioner that some of the records have been seized by the Directorate of Intelligence also, and the Central Board of Direct Taxes has also dealt with the matter and passed certain orders regarding the assessments of Satyam Computers and the assessing authority is acting in violation of those orders but it is not necessary to go into the same having regard to the reliefs claimed.
7 The main plea of the petitioner, i.e., the present management of Mahindra Satyam is that it is not in a position to get the information sought for by the assessing authority and produce the same before it as the entire record containing that information has been seized by the CBI and produced before the criminal court and also a part of it is with the CBI itself. It therefore says it requires considerable time to get the material records from the court and the CBI to furnish the information called for by the assessing authority and it cannot furnish the information overnight. Its grievance is that if it is not given an opportunity to get that record and file the necessary information before the assessing authority the latter may pass orders of assessment or reassessments and that would result in prejudice to it.
8 The petitioner says that since the time for completion of the assessments for both the assessment years 2002-03 and 2007-08, expires by August 19, 2011, the time limit for the assessing authority to complete the assessments for both the years should be extended by this court by six months from the date on which the petitioner obtains access to the documents in the custody of the CBI/special court and other agencies mentioned by the petitioner. The other consequential relief claimed is that the assessing authority should be directed to pass the assessment orders only after giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to produce the information/record called for by the assessing authority. These are the two reliefs claimed in each of these writ petitions and they are already set out in paragraph 2 of this order.
The respondent filed separate counter-affidavits resisting both the writ petitions. It did not dispute the facts stated by the petitioner regarding reopening of the assessments and ordering of special audits and the letters said to have been sent by the assessing authority to Satyam Computers or the petitioner calling for information for both the assessment years and also the special audit reports. The respondent, however, justified reopening of the assessments, ordering of the special audits and also the sending of communications calling for additional information. Sri J. V. Prasad basing on the pleas of the respondent pointed out that in respect of the assessment year 2002-03 the assessing authority originally issued the letter dated March 27, 2009, calling for certain additional information and the Satyam Computers already furnished it and later on certain clarifications were called for through subsequent letters.
The version of the respondent is that it initially issued notices dated March 27, 2009, in respect of both the assessment year 2007-08 also calling for additional information and the petitioner company gave the information and therefore the petitioner company's present plea that it requires the records from the CBI and the special court to give clarifications is an invented one and cannot be accepted. The respondent in its counters stated that the petitioner company gave information in part and in piece meal on various dates from August 26, 2009, to August 2, 2011, in respect of both the assessment years and gave their details also and the present writ petitions are filed only to drag on the matter. It is also urged that in a case like this there is no provision under the Act to extend time for . completion of the assessment which is fixed by the statute and this court cannot under article 226 of the Constitution extend the time for giving opportunity to the petitioner.
Subsequently Sri K. Vivek Reddy filed certain additional documents in both the matters to support his contention or show justification for grant of the reliefs claimed.
In the light of the rival contentions it has now to be seen whether this court can grant the relief claimed by the petitioner in both the writ petitions and extend the time for completion of assessments as urged by it and that is the point in both the matters.
We have at length set out the pleas of the petitioner company as Sri Vivek Reddy tried to persuade us to see the justification for grant of reliefs prayed for by the petitioner. Now, to go into this aspect of justification or merits we have to first see whether this court has got the power under the Act to grant such an extension. Sri Vivek Reddy says that this court has got such power under the Act and he also pointed out that this court has got inherent powers under article 226 of the Constitution to extend the time. We have now to first see whether the said contentions regarding power or jurisdiction of this court can be accepted.
14 In the course of arguments Sri Vivek Reddy relied upon section 153 of the Act which deals with time limit for completion of assessments and reassessments and the extension of time limit and argued that the said provision empowers this court to extend the time for completion of assessments. He placed reliance upon section 153(3)(ii) of the Act to show that in the circumstances pleaded by the petitioner this court under that provision can extend the time. That provision reads as follows :
1/153.(3) The provisions of sub-sections (1), (lA), (lB) and (2) shall not apply to the following classes of assessments, reassessments and recomputations which may, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2A), be completed at any time:
(i) Omitted by the Finance Act, 2001, With effect from June 1, 2001.
(ii) where the assessment, reassessment or recomputation is made on the assessee or any person in consentience of or to give effect to any finding or direction contained in an order under section 250, 254, 260, 262, 263 or 264 or in, an order of any court in a proceeding otherwise than by way of appeal or reference under this Act ;1/
15 It may be noted that the first part of clause (ii) of section 153(3) says that where reassessment is to be carried out in consequence of or to give effect to any finding or direction contained in an order under section 250, 254, 260, 262, 263 or 264 of the Act the assessment can be completed at any time. Sections 250,254,260, 262,' 263 and 264 of the Act deal With appellate and revisional remedies provided under the Act. We are not concerned with this first part as it is not applicable here. Then the 'second part of section 153(3)(ii) says that an assessment or reassessment can be completed at any time to give effect to any finding or direction contained in an order of any court in a proceeding otherwise 'than by way of appeal or reference under this Act (emphasis1 supplied).
16 The contention of Sri Vivek Reddy is that the present two writ petitions can be said to be proceedings under the aforementioned second part of section 153(3)(ii) of the Act and, therefore, this court having regard to the pleas of the petitioner can extend the time and grant the reliefs prayed for as there is, according to him, every justification for extension of time. On the other hand, the contention of Sri J. v. Prasad is-that these writ'petitions are filed only for the relief of extension of time and therefore they cannot fall under the above provision unless they raise some question or questions regarding the assessments and the court gives a finding or direction as to how the said assessments are to be carried on or effected. He also pointed out that no relief is claimed in the writ petitions challenging the assessments or reopening of assessments on any ground except seeking extension of time and that is a minus point for the petitioner.
Sri J. V. Prasad relied upon two decisions of the Supreme Court in support of his contention. The first is the one given in Rajinder Nath v. CIT [1979] 120 ITR 14 (SC) ; [1979J 4 SCC 282 and the second is the decision given in Hope Textiles Ltd. v. Union of India [1994] 205 ITR 508 (SC) ; [1995] Supp 3 SCC 199. This second decision is directly on the point. In this second decision an order or assessment was made on March 27, 1974, for the assessment year 1971-72 of that assessee. On February 21, 1976, a reassessment notice was issued under section 148 of the Act and pursuant to the same the assessee filed a return disclosing further losses but no orders were passed by the assessing authority till September, 1981. The assessee filed a writ petition in the concerned High Court for a mandamus to the assessing authority to pass orders in pursuance of its notice but the High Court dismissed the writ petition holding that no mandamus could be issued compelling the assessing authority to make an order of assessment beyond the period of limitation prescribed by section 153(3). On appeal by the assessee, the Supreme Court confirmed that order observing that sub-clause (ii) of section 153(3) could not be understood as empowering the High Court to give a direction to the authority under the Act to ignore the period of limitation prescribed under it.
In the first decision, the Supreme Court held that certain findings or observations recorded by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner could not be regarded as directions to be given effect to under the first part of section 153(3)(ii) of the Act and this is not on the point. The second decision cited by Sri J. V. Prasad which is on the point fully'supports his contention and even a plain reading of the language of section l53(3)(ii) of the Act supports his contention and that stands fortified by the said decision.
It is true that in Hope Textiles Ltd.'s case (supra) the writ petition was filed only for a direction to the assessing authority to complete the assessment beyond time and no ground was raised expressing about the difficulty of assessee in furnishing the additional information called for as in the present case. The Supreme Court had no occasion in the above case to deal with this aspect. It is settled position that a court cannot extend the time limit prescribed bya statute for doing of a certain act or thing under the said statute unless some provision is made for extension of time in the statute itself and the authority which is given that power has wrongly refused to extend the time. In view of this legal position, the fact that an assessee may have difficulties of his own in furnishing information called for by the assessing authority cannot therefore be made a ground for extending the time by this court under article 226. The mere justification for extending the time cannot also be a ground to extend the time for completion of assessment when the statute does not provide for it. Thus the contention of Sri J. V. Prasad based on the second decision cited by him and which is on the scope of section 153(3)(ii) of the Act has to be accepted.
20 On the other hand, Sri Vivek Reddy relied upon another decision of Supreme Court given in the Director of Inspection of Income-tax (Investigation) v. Pooran Mall and Sons [1974] 96 ITR 390 (SC) ; [1975] 4 SCC 568 in support of his contention. This decision pertains to the time limit prescribed under the then existing section 132(5) of the Act within which the Income-tax Officer has to estimate the undisclosed income relatable to the seized property and also the amount of tax payable on it plus the person from whom it is recoverable. This decision did not pertain to extension of time for completing the assessment and it does not cover a case like this and it is distinguishable on facts. Extension of time for completion of assessments or reassessments is provided for under section 153(3)(ii) of the Act and it does not cover a situation like this where the writ petition is merely filed for the relief of extension of time. Hence, Sri Vivek Reddy's contention on this aspect cannot be accepted.
21· Then coming to the contention of Sri Vivek Reddy based upon inherent power of this court, it may be noted that a perusal of article 226, would show that though it is empowered to issue certain prerogative writs or directions or other orders, the said article nowhere says that this court has any inherent power to pass any order in the interests of justice. Thus the wording used in article 226, in our opinion, would show that this court is bound to act only within the four comers of the law when there is a law or statute governing a field and that even otherwise this court cannot do anything which is not permitted by law even though there is no express prohibition for doing it. Hence, the said contention of Sri Vivek Reddy is also rejected. In view of the above legal position we refrain from going into the merits of the matter as we cannot go into the same.
It may be noted that the petitioner company has also got remedies under the Act itself if it is aggrieved by the assessment or reassessment orders and it can pursue those remedies. This apart the other four writ petitions referred to supra are stated to be pending regarding the merits of the matter. The petitioner can work out its remedies in the said proceedings.
Hence, both the writ petitions are dismissed as no mandamus or any other -writ in the nature of mandamus can be issued to direct a statutory authority to violate a statutory provision or act beyond its scope and do something which is not permitted by it. No costs.