9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to the jurisdiction and power of the Income-tax Officer in revising the assessment under section 35 of the Income-tax Act. Analysis: The judgment dealt with the challenge against the order of the Income-tax Officer revising the assessment of the petitioner under section 35 of the Income-tax Act. The petitioner, a non-resident assessee residing in Penang, had his total income computed by the Income-tax Officer for the assessment year 1953-54. The tax payable by a non-resident assessee is determined under section 17(1) of the Act, allowing for an option to declare total world income for tax assessment. The petitioner made a declaration under the first proviso to section 17(1) before the assessment was completed, and the tax liability was computed accordingly. However, the Income-tax Officer later claimed a mistake in the assessment, stating that the declaration made by the petitioner was not valid under the first proviso, leading to a demand for additional tax payment. The petitioner objected to this claim, arguing against the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer to rectify the assessment under section 35. The judgment emphasized that the jurisdiction to rectify a mistake under section 35 is limited to mistakes apparent from the record. It clarified that the provision does not cover mistakes requiring a complicated process of investigation or interpretation. In this case, the alleged mistake was based on the assessing authority's misinterpretation of the second proviso to section 17(1) regarding the condonation of delay in exercising the option. The court concluded that this misinterpretation did not constitute a mistake apparent from the record as required by section 35(1) of the Act. The judgment highlighted that the scope of the second proviso was not unequivocal, allowing for a reasonable argument in favor of the assessing authority's actions. Therefore, the court held that the Income-tax Officer's order to rectify the alleged mistake was beyond the jurisdiction granted under section 35 of the Act. As a result, the petition was allowed, and the rule was made absolute. The court set aside the order of the Income-tax Officer, granting the assessee relief and entitlement to costs, including counsel's fee.
|
