Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 1976 (9) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1976 (9) TMI 27 - HC - Income Tax


Issues:
Petition to quash income-tax authorities' orders and seek refund of tax; Refusal to reopen assessment by Income-tax Officer; Rejection of refund claim by Income-tax Officer; Dismissal of revision petition by Commissioner of Income-tax; Interpretation of scope of revision under section 264.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a non-resident company holding shares in Indian companies, received dividends during the relevant assessment year. The petitioner omitted to include an interim dividend of Rs. 2,30,000 in its return for the assessment year 1965-66, leading to the Income-tax Officer not considering the gross dividend and deductions towards income-tax and super-tax. The petitioner sought a refund of Rs. 11,500 deducted as super-tax, as per the Finance Act, 1965. The Income-tax Officer declined to reopen the assessment despite the petitioner's request, leading to a series of unsuccessful appeals.

The petitioner then filed a revision petition under section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, before the Commissioner of Income-tax seeking inclusion of the omitted dividend in its income and refund of the super-tax. The Commissioner dismissed the revision petition, stating no mistake in the Income-tax Officer's order. The High Court observed that the Commissioner took a narrow view of the revision scope, failing to consider the petitioner's inadvertent omission and consequent refund denial.

Referring to a previous judgment, the High Court emphasized the Commissioner's duty to assess the petitioner's plea and revise the assessment if necessary. The court found the Commissioner's order erroneous and quashed it. The High Court allowed the petition, quashed the Commissioner's order, and directed a fresh disposal of the revision petition in accordance with the law. The parties were directed to bear their own costs in the petition.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates