1927 (1) TMI 3

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nd the question on which we are asked to give our opinion isnwhether under the circumstances of the present case there is any legal limitation preventing the Commissioner from passing his order under S. 33 dated the 15th December 1925, the result of which is an enhanced demand. 2. The circumstances referred to are that the assesses was assessed to income-tax on an income of ₹ 28,434 but in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed the application for review and finally decided to allow the assessee ₹ 1,905 as irrecoverable loans written off during the accounting period. The result was that the total assessable income was reduced to ₹ 21,529, but the Commissioner calculated income-tax thereon at Re. 0-1-3 per rupee. The result was that the actual amount of income-tax demanded from the assessee exceeded the amo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... h date action could have been initiated by the income-tax officer under S. 34 or 35 of the Act. the ordinary period of one year provided by those sections did not apply. 3. After giving our careful consideration to the above opinion and the arguments advanced before us by Mr. Jagan Rath Aggarwal, who appeared for the Crown we are of opinion that the question should be answered in the affirmative. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... vision enabling the Commissioner to pass orders prejudicial to an assessee without any limit of time we are of opinion that his powers are subject to the same restrictions as those of an income-tax officer under S. 35 which clearly provides that an income-tax officer is not entitled to rectify a mistake to the prejudice of an assessee after the expiry of one year from the date of the demand. Even .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ssments to the prejudice of an assessee, a position that the legislature could not have contemplated. The fact that the assessee had moved the Commissioner under S. 33 would not, in our opinion, make any difference because the question of rectification was not covered by his petition. 4. With the above expression of opinion we return the case to the Commissioner. The assessee was not represented .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X