9911796707
TMI Blog1963 (8) TMI 71X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts and gains for the assessment year 1956-57. Its total income was determined at ₹ 5,69,396. The Income Tax and super-tax payable thereon was fixed at ₹ 2,47,325. The super-tax was computed on the basis that it was entitled to a rebate of ₹ 1,42,349 at the rate of four annas in the rupee as provided for under the Finance Act, 1956. The assessee had not distributed any dividend for several of the previous years relevant to the assessment years 1946-47 to 1951-52. Action was therefore taken against the assessee under Section 23-A of the Act by the Income Tax Officer. This resulted in appropriate orders under that provision. Giving effect to the order under Section 23-A , the assessee passed a resolution in its general body m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nto account for the purpose of withdrawing the rebate on the super-tax payable. The assessee, therefore, obtained partial relief before the Appellate Authority. 3. The Department took the matter by way of an appeal to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and challenged the correctness of the order of the Assistant Commissioner granting relief in respect of the sum of ₹ 3,54,716. The appeal failed as the Tribunal took the view that the proceedings under Section 34(1)(b) were not well-founded. Against this order of the Tribunal a reference was sought to this Court and the Tribunal referred three questions of law. We have dealt with that matter in C.I.T., Madras v. Sundaram Co. (1963) 2 I.T.R. 486 : (1963) 2 M.L.J. 584 4. By way of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he re-assessment order of the Income Tax Officer dated 28th March, 1959. There cannot be any doubt that the Income Tax Officer could not rectify the order dated 29th March, 1957 which ceased to exist on and from 29th March, 1959 when the Income Tax Officer himself passed the order of re-assessment under Section 34 of the Act. 6. Learned Counsel for the Department is unable to justify the proceedings under Section 35 of the Act in view of the events that happened subsequent to the original order dated 29th March, 1957. On the short ground that there was no order which could form the subject-matter of a proceeding under Section 35 and that therefore the proceedings were wholly misconceived and were without jurisdiction, this writ petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
