9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (7) TMI 2X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... " The facts shortly stated are that, in the assessment for the assessment year 1964-65, there was a mistake in not charging additional tax on dividend distributed during the previous year ended December 31, 1963 (Rs. 5,62,000) by way of reduction in rebate of super tax in terms of the provisions of the Finance Act, 1964. Since the mistake was apparent from the record, the Income-tax Officer issued a notice under section 154 dated March 19, 1979, for rectification of the order passed to give effect to the order made by the Tribunal under section 254 of the Act on July 18, 1975, wherein the aforesaid mistake was committed. Accordingly, he passed the order under section 154 on April 5, 1979. Being aggrieved by the order of rectification date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er passed by the Income-tax Officer on July 18, 1975, was within the specified time and, therefore, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was wrong in observing that the order was barred by limitation. The Tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Tribunal held as follows : " A perusal of the order passed by the Income-tax Officer under section 154 dated April 5, 1979, would show that the Income-tax Officer himself stated therein that there was a mistake in the assessment in not charging additional tax on dividend distributed during the previous year ended December 31, 1963, by way of reduction in rebate of super tax in terms of the provisions of the Finance Act, 1964. This very fact goes to suggest that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of the appellate authority. If the mistake is in the original order, then the order of rectification is, on the face of it, barred by limitation. If, however, the mistake is in the subsequent order, that is to say, the order giving effect to the appellate order, in that event, it was not barred by limitation. The contention of Dr. Pal is that the mistake, if any, occurred in the original order dated May 30, 1973, and, accordingly, the order passed on April 5, 1979, is barred by limitation. If the original assessment order merges with the order of the appellate order in its entirety, in that event, the original order cannot be rectified by the Income-tax Officer. Section 154(1A) specifically provides that where any matter has been consider ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... giving effect to the order of the appellate authority, the starting point of limitation would be the date of the original order and not the date of the order passed by the Income-tax Officer giving effect to the order of the appellate authority. Our attention has been drawn to the judgment of this court in the case of Bengal Assam Steamship Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1978] 114 ITR 327. In that case, the Income-tax Officer passed an order under section 49A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, granting certain reliefs to the assessee under the Agreement for Avoidance of Double Taxation between India and Pakistan. Thereafter, the Income-tax Officer passed an order under section 154 by which he modified the earlier order granting certain reliefs under s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
