9911796707
TMI Blog1978 (9) TMI 5X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owever, include the share income of his wife in his total income, although he disclosed it in the return at the appropriate place that she too was a partner in the aforesaid firm. The ITO accepted the return and completed the assessment on February 7, 1964, on a total income of Rs. 23,163. As a result of the reassessment proceedings taken under s. 147/148 subsequently, the ITO passed a fresh order of assessment on March 21, 1969, in which he included the share income of the assessee's wife in the total income of the assessee. On appeal, the order was reversed by the AAC on the ground that it was not a case of escapement. The order of the AAC was confirmed by the Tribunal on May 18, 1972. In the meantime, the assessment of the firm, M/s. Dau ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pose of giving effect to the income resultant from the completion of the firm's assessment, still the rectification order was barred by limitation. As regards s. 155, the Tribunal held that the same was inapplicable. In this view, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue. At the instance of the Commissioner, the Tribunal has referred the following question of law for our opinion: " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the Income-tax Officer's order dated 29th December, 1972, under section 154 was barred by time and that action under section 155 was not admissible? " Section 154 empowers the ITO to rectify an order of assessment passed by him. The power can be ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... artificial income of the husband from the firm under s. 64(1)(i) of the Act. It will not be necessary for us to go into this point in this case. For, cl. (1) would apply if the mistake was discovered in consequence of assessment or reassessment of the firm. On facts stated above that is not so. The mistake was already there writ large on the assessment record. In our opinion, therefore, s. 155(1) has no application to this case. The mistake could no doubt be rectified under s. 154, provided the rectification order was passed within four years from the date of the order of assessment. That is clearly not so. The rectification order was passed on December 29, 1972, i.e., more than four years after the assessment order was passed on February ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
