9911796707
TMI Blog1978 (7) TMI 54X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the ITO was in respect of additional surcharge. Soon thereafter, the internal audit party pointed out to the ITO that, as additional surcharge was not income within the meaning of s. 81(i)(a) of the Act, the rebate of Rs. 8,866.26 allowed in respect of additional surcharge was not admissible. Thereupon, the ITO issued a notice under s. 154 of the I.T. Act to the assessee and withdrew the rebate in respect of additional surcharge. While rectifying the mistake, he held that since no rebate could be granted in respect of the additional surcharge, the order to that extent was liable to be corrected. Against the order of the ITO rectifying the mistake, the assessee preferred an appeal before the AAC of Income-tax, Moradabad. The AAC allow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inance Act, XIII of 1963. It made a provision for the levy of additional surcharge on the residual income. The additional surcharge was payable by the persons falling within the framework of the aforesaid Finance Act, XIII of 1963. In pursuance of the aforesaid Finance Act, the assessee society had to pay additional surcharge. The assessee claimed that as additional surcharge was an additional levy on the income-tax and had no existence apart from that, it was entitled to get rebate on additional surcharge as well. As already seen above, this was allowed at the first instance by the ITO but was subsequently withdrawn by means of the proceedings started under s. 154 of the Act. The question relating to the validity of the levy of additiona ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e-tax and that a society would be made liable to pay additional surcharge although its income was liable to be exempt under s. 81(i)(a). This being so, no society could be granted rebate in respect of additional surcharge paid by it on the residual income. The ITO, therefore, committed an error in granting rebates on the amount of additional surcharge paid by the assessee-society. The next question that arises is whether the mistake in allowing the rebate was of a nature which could attract s. 154 of the Act? It is undoubtedly true that s. 154 of the Act can be pressed into service only where a mistake committed by an ITO is a mistake apparent on the face of the record. The mistake should be a patent one. In the instant case, after having ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
