9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether the Income-tax authority acted in excess of jurisdiction by rectifying original orders assessing the petitioner to income tax for consecutive years. 2. Whether the business activities of the petitioner in tobacco and cashew constitute distinct businesses for income tax assessment purposes. Analysis: Issue 1: The petitioner challenged the Income-tax Officer's rectification orders for consecutive years under Article 226 of the Constitution. The first order, dated 30th May 1953, assessed the petitioner's income for the year 1124 M.E. The total income was adjusted against the previous year's loss, resulting in no tax levy. Subsequently, rectification orders were issued, splitting the business income into tobacco and cashew components for assessment. The petitioner objected, arguing that his dealings in tobacco and cashew constituted the same business. The court held that the Income-tax Officer's actions amounted to revision and reassessment, not rectification of a mistake evident on the record, as required by the law. The court quashed the rectification order dated 29th April 1955, under the Travancore Income-tax Act, stating that it was beyond the officer's jurisdiction. Issue 2: In the second case concerning the income tax assessment for 1951-52, a similar situation arose. The assessment computed income from property, tobacco, cashew, and other sources, with the loss from the previous year set off against cashew income alone. The Income-tax Officer rectified the computation by adding tobacco income to the total income for assessment. The court applied the same principle as in the first case and held that the officer exceeded his jurisdiction under section 35 of the Income-tax Act. The rectification order dated 30th April 1955 was quashed, and the respondent was directed to pay the petitioner's costs. The court emphasized that rectification powers are limited to correcting errors apparent on the record and do not extend to revision or reassessment based on new conclusions. In conclusion, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner in both cases, emphasizing the limited scope of rectification powers and the need for errors to be evident on the record for such actions to be valid under the law.
|
