Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 1978 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1978 (7) TMI 27 - HC - Income TaxBonus Shares, Capital Redemption Reserve, Computation Of Capital, General Reserve, Income Tax Act, Rectification Proceedings
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Income Tax Officer (ITO) under Section 13 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964. 2. Definition and scope of "mistake apparent on the face of the record." 3. Interpretation of Rule 4 of the Second Schedule to the Surtax Act. 4. Validity of notices issued for rectification under Section 13 of the Surtax Act. Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of the Income Tax Officer (ITO) under Section 13 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964: The court examined whether the ITO had exceeded the jurisdiction conferred upon him by Section 13 of the Surtax Act when issuing the impugned notices. Section 13 allows rectification of mistakes apparent from the record within four years of the order. The ITO's jurisdiction is contingent upon the existence of such a mistake. The court cited the Supreme Court's observation in Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale, which clarified that an error requiring a long drawn process of reasoning is not apparent on the face of the record. The court concluded that the ITO had no jurisdiction to rectify the alleged mistakes as they were not apparent on the face of the record. 2. Definition and Scope of "Mistake Apparent on the Face of the Record": The court reiterated the principle that a "mistake apparent on the face of the record" must be obvious and patent, not requiring lengthy arguments or reasoning. The court referenced T. S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Brothers, which held that a debatable point of law does not constitute such a mistake. The court found that the issues raised by the petitioner were highly debatable and not self-evident, thus falling outside the scope of Section 13 for rectification. 3. Interpretation of Rule 4 of the Second Schedule to the Surtax Act: The court explored the interpretation of Rule 4, which pertains to the computation of capital for surtax purposes. The petitioner argued that deductions under Sections 80-I and 80J of the Income Tax Act should not affect the capital computation. The court noted that this issue had been debated in multiple cases, including Stumpp, Schuele & Somappa Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO and CIT v. Century Spg. & Mfg. Co. Ltd. These cases held that the term "not includible" refers to amounts not capable of being included in the total income, not to statutory deductions. The court found the issue to be highly debatable, thus not qualifying as a mistake apparent on the face of the record. 4. Validity of Notices Issued for Rectification under Section 13 of the Surtax Act: The court examined the specific notices issued to the petitioner under Section 13 in several petitions: - M.P. No. 203/1976: The court found that the ITO's notice to rectify deductions under Sections 80-I and 80J was based on a debatable issue. The notices were quashed as the alleged mistakes were not apparent on the face of the record. - M.P. No. 204/76: Similar to M.P. No. 203/1976, the court quashed the notices for the assessment years 1969-70 and 1971-72, reiterating that the issues were debatable and not apparent mistakes. - M.P. No. 205/76: The court addressed the issue of bonus shares and their impact on paid-up share capital. It noted conflicting judgments on whether bonus shares increase paid-up capital. The court found the issue debatable and quashed the notices. - M.P. No. 463/76: The court examined the classification of reserves, specifically a capital redemption reserve and a general reserve. The court found that determining whether these amounts constituted reserves involved complex factual and legal questions, making the alleged mistakes not apparent on the face of the record. The notices were quashed. Conclusion: In all petitions, the court concluded that the ITO had no jurisdiction under Section 13 of the Surtax Act to rectify the alleged mistakes as they were not apparent on the face of the record. The notices issued for rectification were quashed, and the petitions were allowed, with parties bearing their own costs. The outstanding security deposits were ordered to be refunded to the petitioner.
|