9911796707
TMI Blog1971 (12) TMI 22X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the assessee in the respective previous years, the super-tax rebate should have been reduced. As that had not been done, the super-tax payable by the assessee had been under-charged - omission to give effect to the provisions of Finance Acts, 1958 and 1959 was a mistake apparent from the record. Therefore, the rectification proceedings were valid - Appeal dismissed - - - - - Dated:- 15-12-1971 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, the super-tax payable by the assessee had been under-charged. The appellant objected to the rectification proceedings. But, on July 17, 1962, the Income-tax Officer made two separate orders under section 35 of the Act for the two assessment, years purporting to rectify the mistake apparent from the record. In the result, an amount of Rs. 24,173 was withdrawn from the super-tax rebate for the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellate order been filed along with the writ petition. The other contention is that the Income-tax Officer acted outside the scope of section 35 of the Act inasmuch as there was no mistake apparent from the record. There was, it is said, a debatable question whether the Finance Act, 1958, and the Finance Act, 1959, warranted the reduction of super-tax rebate. It appears that in the rectif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of the Finance Act, 1951, which was declared invalid, is wholly different from the provisions in the Finance Acts of 1958 and 1959 and no comparison whatever is possible between the two. This is a case where the Income-tax Officer omitted to apply the relevant provisions of the Finance Acts of 1958 and 1959, and we are satisfied that the omission constitutes a mistake apparent from the record ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
