9911796707
TMI Blog1972 (2) TMI 27X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ompany, was assessed to income-tax for the assessment year 1966-67. In computing the total income the assessee was granted development rebate in respect of some machinery which had been installed by it in the calendar year 1964. The assessee had also claimed depreciation on certain assets including land. Later on, the Supreme Court in a case, Commissioner of Income-tax v. Alps Theatre [1967] 65 IT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... treating it as a case of rectification of mistake. He finally passed an order under that section on September 10, 1971, withdrawing the development rebate which had been allowed to the assessee in the original assessment order after overruling the assessee's contention that the order was timebarred. The present petition is directed against that order. The original assessment order under which th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der does not merge into an order passed under section 148. Where reassessment is made under section 148 (corresponding to section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922), the Income-tax Officer's jurisdiction is confined to the income which had escaped assessment and does not extend to revising, reopening and reconsidering the whole assessment. See Kashi Nath Bagla v. Commissioner of Income-tax [19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave merged in another order only if the latter is passed by a superior authority. It does not merge into a subsequent order passed by the same authority. We, therefore, cannot accept the contention of the learned counsel that the original assessment order had merged into the order passed under section 148, and, therefore, it could be rectified under section 154 after the expiry of four years from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
