9911796707
TMI Blog1976 (9) TMI 27X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e petitioner is, briefly, as follows : The petitioner is a non-resident company which is holding shares in three companies registered in India. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1955-56 the petitioner received dividends from these three companies. One of these companies, namely, M/s. O.C.M. India (Private) Ltd., had declared an interim dividend of Rs. 2,30,000 and a final dividend of Rs. 1,15,000. Out of the gross interim dividend of Rs. 2,30,000 M/s. O.C.M. India (Private) Ltd. had deducted at the source Rs. 57,500 towards income-tax and Rs. 11,500 towards super-tax. While sending its return of income for the assessment year 1965-66 the petitioner omitted to include the interim dividend of Rs. 2,30,000 and according ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llate Assistant Commissioner and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, against the aforesaid order of the Income-tax Officer, were unsuccessful. The petitioner also preferred a revision petition to the Commissioner of Income-tax (hereinafter referred to as "the Commissioner") under section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, praying that the order of assessment might be revised so that the interim dividend of Rs. 2,30,000 received by it from M/s. O.C.M. India (Private) Ltd. and inadvertently not included in the original return, might be included in its income and the super-tax deducted at the source might be refunded to it (the petitioner). The Commissioner dismissed the revision petition observing as follows : "The petitioner filed return sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tly it was deprived of the refund of Rs. 11,500. This aspect of the case has not at all been considered by the Commissioner. In Pt. Sheo Nath Prasad Sharma v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1967] 66 ITR 647 (All) the assessee who had himself shown certain amount in his return as taxable and was assessed to tax thereon, subsequently approached the Commissioner by way of revision contending that that amount was not taxable. The Commissioner dismissed the revision petition observing as follows : "As the assessee has himself shown the incomes on which he has been assessed, there is no force in the present petition filed by the assessee." Quashing the order of the Commissioner, Pathak J. (as he then was) observed thus at page 651 of the repor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
