1986 (7) TMI 1 - SC - Income Tax

Rectification of Mistake - New Industrial Undertaking - assessee omitted to claim relief u/s 84 - since records did not indicate that the assessee is entitled to relief under s. 84, the assessee cannot claim the relief subsequently under s. 154.

Issues:
- Appeal against the judgment and order of the High Court of Allahabad dismissing a writ petition.
- Claim for rebate under section 84 of the Income-tax Act.
- Obligation on the Income-tax Officer to grant relief under section 84.
- Conditions to be fulfilled for relief under section 84.
- Relationship between the record of income-tax assessment and super profits tax assessment.
- Entitlement to relief under section 84 based on the material in the super profits tax assessment record.

Analysis:
The Supreme Court heard an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad, which dismissed a writ petition filed by a private limited company engaged in the manufacture and sale of locks. The company had not claimed a rebate under section 84 of the Income-tax Act during the assessment proceedings for the year 1963-64. Subsequently, the company sought rectification under section 154 of the Act to claim relief under section 84, but its application was rejected by the Income-tax Officer and the Commissioner of Income-tax, leading to the writ petition's dismissal by the High Court. The appellant contended that the authorities were obligated to grant relief under section 84, arguing that the failure to claim relief during the assessment proceedings should not preclude the Income-tax Officer from rectifying the assessment order to provide relief.

The court acknowledged the obligation on the Income-tax Officer to grant relief under section 84 but emphasized the necessity of clear data in the assessment record to enable the officer to consider granting relief. Various conditions, such as the nature of the industrial undertaking and the number of employees, must be satisfied before relief under section 84 can be granted. The court highlighted that the mere existence of an obligation is not adequate; the assessment record must contain precise factual material to support the claim for relief.

The appellant argued that material necessary for relief under section 84 was present in the record of the assessment under the Super Profits Tax Act, which is closely linked to the Income-tax Act. The court agreed that the record of the super profits tax assessment could be considered part of the income-tax assessment record, given their interconnectedness. However, the court noted that not all required data for satisfying the conditions of section 84 was present in the super profits tax assessment record at the time of the income-tax assessment. The Additional Commissioner found that the necessary facts indicating entitlement to relief were not provided by the appellant during the assessment proceedings, leading to the dismissal of the revision petition.

Ultimately, the court held that the Income-tax Officer did not commit a mistake apparent from the record by not granting relief under section 84, as the essential material was lacking. The appeal was dismissed, emphasizing the importance of fulfilling conditions and providing necessary data to support a claim for relief under section 84.

This judgment underscores the significance of meeting statutory conditions and providing clear factual material to support claims for relief under tax laws. It highlights the need for thorough documentation and compliance with legal requirements to substantiate claims for tax benefits.

← Previous Next →