9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (3) TMI 9X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e A.Y.1960-61, the ITO passed an order under Section 143(3) on 23.3.1965. (b) Aggrieved by this order of assessment the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and one of the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee was that ITO had erred in rejecting the assessee's claim under Section 15(c) of the Income Tax Act. (c) The Commissioner (Appeals) by his order dated 27.2.1969 was pleased to allow the appeal and to grant the assessees claim under Section 15(c) which pertained to the profits of new industrial undertakings of the assessee. No further appeal was preferred against this order and thus the same became final. (d) The order of Commissioner (Appeals) was given effect to by the ITO vide his further order dated 29.5.1969 and relief under Section 15-C to the extent of Rs.1,04,01,109 was granted to the assessee. (e) On 21.12.1972, the assessee filed an application for rectification of the order dated 29.5.1969. In this application he contended that while calculating the benefit under Section 15-C, the ITO had not added half of the profits of the current year as well as half of the development rebate as was required to be done under rule 3(6) of the Indian Inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eported in 32 ITR 350, this Court was considering the scope of the jurisdiction under Section 35 of the Indian Income Tax Act 1922 which was paramateria to section 154 and in its judgment this Court defined the scope of the jurisdiction as under :- The jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer under section 35 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, is to rectify mistakes which are "apparent from the record" and is not restricted to rectification of mistakes which are clearly clerical or arithmetical. The expression "apparent from the record" should not be equated with the expression "apparent on the face of the record". The mistake to be rectified should, however, be a mistake "patent on the record and not a mistake which may be discovered by a process of elucidation, argument or debate". 4. This Court further observed as under :- " In ascertaining whether there is an error apparent from the record the Income-tax Officer need not confine himself to the order of assessment of the assessee alone. All proceedings which constitute evidence on which the assessment order is passed must be regarded as record for the purposes of section 35. The Income-tax officer is not prohibited from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the asset shall be treated as the price at which the asset was acquired. (3) Any borrowed money and debt due by the person carrying on the business shall be deducted and in particular there shall be deducted any debts incurred in respect of the business for income-tax and super-tax or business profits tax or for advance payments due under any provision of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, or for any sum payable in relation to business profits tax under Section 13 of the Business Profits Tax Act, 1947 (XXI of 1947) ; Provided that any such debt for income-tax or super-tax or business profits tax shall, for the purpose of this sub-rule, be deemed to have become due- (a) in the case of income-tax and super-tax on the last day of the period of time within which the tax is payable under Section 45 of the Act ; (b) in the case of business profits tax on the first day after the end of the chargeable accounting period in respect of which the tax is assessable notwithstanding that the business profits tax may not have been assessed until after that date; (c) in the case of any advance payment due under any provision of the Act or of any provisional tax paid under Section 23B of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gents was not to be paid until the accounts of the company for such financial year have been audited and laid before the company in a general meeting. Our attention was drawn to the relevant clause in the Articles of Association of the Company which was as under :- The remuneration payable to the Managing Agents for the time being for any financial year or part thereof shall not be paid until the accounts of the Company for such financial year have been audited and laid before the company in general meeting, provided, however, that the said minimum remuneration for every financial year may be paid by the Company to the Managing Agents by twelve monthly installments at the end of each and every month of that year." It was pointed out that in the present case these accounts were placed before the AGM on 16.6.1959 (for the previous year ending 31.3.1959) and 14.9.1960 (for the previous year ending 31.3.1960). It was contended that these amounts were not dues payable in the previous years in question. Reliance was placed upon a judgment of this Court in the case of CIT Bombay City-VI Vs. National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd., reported in 115 ITR 56, in which this Court emphasis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
