1993 (3) TMI 2 - SC - Income Tax

Question of withdrawing the deduction granted earlier on account of the excess profits tax arose only after the Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed the appeals - bar contained in sub-section (1D) of section 34 not applicable - Once the liability of the assessees under the Excess Profits Tax Act was held to be nil, the deduction given earlier had to be withdrawn and it was, accordingly, withdrawn under section 35(6)

Summary

Issues:
1. Assessment under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 for the assessment year 1942-43.
2. Appeals against assessment under the Excess Profits Tax Act.
3. Rectification orders passed by the Income-tax Officer.
4. Dismissal of writ petitions by the High Court challenging rectification orders.

Analysis:

Assessment under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 for the assessment year 1942-43:
The assessees, Chhathu Ram and Darshan Ram, were assessed as individuals for the assessment year 1942-43 under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The assessment included cash credits in their personal accounts in a company. Appeals were filed against the assessments, leading to a remand by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner for further consideration.

Appeals against assessment under the Excess Profits Tax Act:
The assessees also faced assessments under the Excess Profits Tax Act, leading to excess profits tax payable determinations. Appeals were filed, and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner confirmed the assessments but remanded the matter regarding the cash credits. Subsequent orders by the Income-tax Officer to include the cash credits were challenged through appeals.

Rectification orders passed by the Income-tax Officer:
Following Tribunal orders under the Excess Profits Tax Act, the Income-tax Officer rectified the assessment orders related to the assessment year 1942-43. The rectification orders withdrew the deduction allowed earlier on account of excess profits tax. Disputes arose regarding the jurisdiction of the rectification orders and the subsequent appeals filed by the assessees.

Dismissal of writ petitions by the High Court challenging rectification orders:
The High Court dismissed the writ petitions challenging the rectification orders. It held that the settlement order did not preclude the Income-tax Officer from passing the rectification orders. The bar under section 34(1D) of the 1922 Act was deemed conclusive only in matters covered by the settlement, which did not include the cash credits issue. The High Court found the rectification orders valid and upheld the Income-tax Officer's actions.

In conclusion, the High Court's decision was upheld, emphasizing that the settlement did not prevent the rectification orders by the Income-tax Officer. The bar under section 34(1D) did not apply to the specific issue of cash credits, leading to the dismissal of the appeals challenging the rectification orders.