1 IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 4723/2006 TAX RECOVERY OFFICER AND ANR. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS R.B.SRIRAM DURGA PRASAD (HUF) RESPONDENT(S) ORDER matter relates to assessment years 1950-51 to 1958-59. Assessments in respect of these years in case of respondent/assessee, were made by Assessing Officer and thereafter notices were issued under Section 144 read with Section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and re-assessment proceedings started on that basis. assessment was done vide order dated 26.3.1970 and appeal of assessee before Commission of Income Tax (Appeals) was dismissed on 02.02.1972. assessee preferred further appeal before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Nagpur Bench which was partially allowed in favour of assessee vide order dated 23.3.1974. That portion of order which went against assessee, assessee sought reference to High Court. Tribunal referred only one question of law Signature Not Verified for decision by Bombay High Court. Aggrieved by that order Digitally signed by ASHWANI KUMAR Date: 2015.09.09 18:16:56 IST Reason: assessee filed application/petition under Section 256(2) of Act for reference of remaining questions also. This application, however, was dismissed by High Court on 2 8.4.1987. Against order of High Court Special Leave Petition was filed. This Special Leave Petition was granted and, therefore, was converted into C.A. Nos. 6944-6952 of 1995. These appeals were finally dismissed on 16.01.2001. Even after dismissal of appeals, assessee did not pay tax that was assessed and in these circumstances Tax Recovery Officer issued recover certificate dated 11.11.2003 for recovery of tax due under assessment as modified by Tribunal. validity of this certificate was challenged by filing writ petition in High Court on ground that certificate was not issued within four years as stipulated in Rule 52. High Court has accepted plea with observation that proceedings got finalised on 8.4.1987 and, therefore, last date for issuing recovery certificate is 1st January, 1992 but certificate was issued thereafter i.e. only on 15.7.2004. It was argued by appellant/Recovery Tax Officer before High Court that proceedings were finalized only on 16.01.2001 when this Court has finally dismissed appeal of assessee. This contention was not accepted by High Court with remarks that proceedings in this Court were independent and distinct then statutory appeal under Section 261 of Act and further that these proceedings were filed by export firm and not by assessee. In aforesaid circumstances, issue is as to when 3 proceedings got finalized namely on 08.04.1987 when High Court had passed order dismissing application of assessee under Section 256(2) of Act or on 16.01.2001 when this Court had dismissed civil appeal of respondent. From narration of facts mentioned above it becomes clear that order of Tribunal refusing to refer certain questions to High Court for its opinion, was challenged by respondent by filing application under Section 256(2) of Act. This application was dismissed on 8.4.1987. respondent did not rest on that. This very order dated 8.4.1987 was challenged by he respondent by filing special leave petition No. 16462-70 of 1988 in which leave was granted and which was converted to Civil Appeal Nos. 6944-6952 of 1995. It is this appeal which was finally dismissed on 16.01.2001. Therefore, High Court is clearly wrong in observing that proceedings got finality on 8.4.1987 when reference application under Section 256(2) of Act was dismissed by High Court. Admittedly, it is this order dated 8.4.1987 which was subject matter of appeal before this Court and appeal was dismissed on 16.01.2001. Therefore, order dated 8.4.1987 passed by Bombay High Court had not attained finality. On aforesaid facts, we find that proceedings got finalized only on 16.01.2001 when appeal of assessee was dismissed by this Court. If period of limitation is 4 reckoned from that date certificate issued on 15.7.2004 is well within four years of limitation provided under law. recovery certificate was, therefore, not time barred as held by High Court in impugned judgment. order of High Court is set aside and appeal is allowed. J. [A.K. SIKRI] J. [ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN] NEW DELHI; SEPTEMBER 04, 2015. 5 ITEM NO.102 COURT NO.14 SECTION IIIA SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No(s). 4723/2006 TAX RECOVERY OFFICER AND ANR. Appellant(s) VERSUS R.B.SRIRAM DURGA PRASAD (HUF) Respondent(s) Date : 04/09/2015 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN For Appellant(s) Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Zahaib Hussain, Adv. Ms. Sadhana Sandhu, Adv. Ms. Anil Katiyar, Adv. Mr. B. V. Balaram Das,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mrs Sarla Chandra,Adv.(Not present) UPON hearing counsel Court made following ORDER appeal is allowed in terms of signed order. Interlocutory application(s) pending, if any, are also disposed of. (Ashwani Thakur) (Renu Diwan) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER (Signed order is placed on file) Tax Recovery Officer and Anr. v. R.B. Sriram Durga Prasad (HUF)