9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Rectification of mistake in the original assessment order for the assessment year 1956-57. 2. Reduction of rebate pursuant to sub-clause (i)(b) of the second proviso to Paragraph D of Part II of Finance Act, 1956. 3. Applicability of section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for rectification. 4. Interpretation of the effect of the scheme of amalgamation on dividend distribution. Analysis: 1. The case involved a mistake in the original assessment order for the assessment year 1956-57 made by the Income-tax Officer. The mistake related to the computation of the reduction in rebate on super-tax, specifically concerning the dividend distribution of Rs. 1,50,000 by Lothian Jute Mills Co. Ltd. The Income-tax Officer proceeded to rectify this mistake under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, despite objections from the assessee. 2. The reduction of rebate was governed by sub-clause (i)(b) of the second proviso to Paragraph D of Part II of Finance Act, 1956. This clause specified that the rebate amount should be reduced if a company distributed dividends exceeding six percent of its paid-up capital. In this case, the issue revolved around whether the dividend distribution of Rs. 1,50,000 should be included in the computation for rebate reduction. 3. The assessee challenged the rectification under section 154, arguing that there was no mistake or, if there was, it was not a correct method of rectification. The Tribunal considered the matter and concluded that the controversy involved debatable questions, making it unsuitable for rectification under section 154. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, leading to a reference to the High Court under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 4. The interpretation of the effect of the scheme of amalgamation on dividend distribution was crucial in determining the correctness of the Income-tax Officer's order. The High Court analyzed previous judgments, including the Supreme Court's decision in T. S. Balaram v. Volkart Brothers, to establish that a mistake apparent on the record must be obvious and not based on debatable points of law. The court found that the issue of whether the dividend distribution should be considered for rebate reduction was debatable, indicating that rectification under section 154 was not appropriate. In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, ruling in favor of the assessee and emphasizing the debatable nature of the issue regarding the effect of the scheme of amalgamation on dividend distribution.
|
