9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Claim for rebate under section 84 of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1963-64. 2. Application under section 154 of the Act for relief under section 84. 3. Interpretation of the term "new industrial undertaking" under section 84. 4. Claim made under the Super Profits Tax Act in relation to the Income-tax Act. 5. Limitation of relief under section 84 to 6% of capital employed. 6. Application of section 154 for rectifying mistakes apparent from the record. Analysis: The judgment delivered by the High Court of Allahabad pertains to a petition filed by a private limited company regarding a claim for rebate under section 84 of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1963-64. The petitioner did not make any claim for rebate under section 84 during the assessment proceedings or before the appellate authority. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application under section 154 of the Act seeking relief under section 84, which was rejected by the Income-tax Officer and the Commissioner of Income-tax. The court emphasized that the claim for rebate under section 84 must be made by the assessee during the assessment proceedings, as it is a mandatory provision that requires fulfillment of specific conditions, including the industrial undertaking being new and other criteria outlined in section 84(2). The court rejected the argument that a claim made under the Super Profits Tax Act automatically extends to the Income-tax Act, highlighting that the two acts are distinct, and no finding had been made regarding the newness of the petitioner's undertaking under section 84. Additionally, the court noted that the relief under section 84 is limited to 6% of the capital employed, which requires specific computation according to rule 19. Since such computation was not provided, the necessary facts for the application of section 84 were not on record. Regarding the application of section 154 for rectification of mistakes, the court distinguished previous cases where section 154 was applied to rectify errors in applying mandatory provisions of law. In the present case, the petitioner failed to make a claim for rebate under section 84, and the Income-tax Officer did not commit a mistake that could be rectified under section 154. The court emphasized that section 154 is not intended for introducing new claims that should have been made during assessment proceedings and requires existing facts on record for rectification. In conclusion, the court dismissed the petition, stating that there was no merit in the petitioner's claim for relief under section 84 due to the failure to fulfill the necessary requirements and the absence of a valid claim during the assessment proceedings.
|
