1997 (3) TMI 13 - SC - Income Tax

In view of the special provision for rectification of an assessment order contained in section 155(5) the general power of rectification contained in section 154 was not applicable and that the power under section 155(5) could not be invoked in the facts of the present case because there was no transfer of plant by the assessee-firm. The appeal by revenue, therefore, fails

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against judgment of the Madras High Court in Tax Cases
2. Questions referred to the High Court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal
3. Development rebate withdrawal under section 155(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961
4. Change in partnership constitution and dissolution of Magnesite Corporation of India Ltd.
5. Interpretation of provisions under section 155(5) and section 154 of the Act

Analysis:

The Supreme Court heard appeals filed by the Revenue against the judgment of the Madras High Court in Tax Cases. The High Court granted a certificate of fitness to the Revenue only in one case, while in the other three cases, it favored the assessee. The Court dismissed the appeals against the judgments in the three cases where the questions were answered in favor of the Revenue. The focus was on the appeal related to Tax Case No. 147 of 1974, involving questions on the grant of development rebate and the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer under section 155(5) of the Act. The assessment years in question were 1960-61 and 1961-62.

The case involved Dalmia Magnesite Corporation, Salem, a partnership firm that underwent a change in constitution. The firm's assets were transferred due to a scheme approved by the Madras High Court, resulting in a change in shareholding. The Income-tax Officer later withdrew the development rebate previously allowed to the assessee, leading to appeals and the reference of questions to the High Court by the Tribunal. The High Court analyzed the provisions of section 155(5) and held that no transfer of plant occurred by the assessee, thus the rectification order was not sustainable. It also emphasized the specific provision in section 155(5) for rectification, excluding the general provision in section 154.

The Revenue contended that the assessee did not cease to exist due to the dissolution of Magnesite Corporation of India Ltd. However, the Court upheld the dissolution based on the scheme approved by the High Court. It concluded that the partnership firm stood dissolved on January 1, 1964, due to the change in partners. The Court found no fault in the High Court's judgment, as it correctly applied the provisions of section 155(5) and section 154. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.

In summary, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing the specific provisions of section 155(5) for rectification of assessment orders and the dissolution of the partnership firm due to the change in partners. The judgment favored the assessee, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.