TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court quashes tax orders, directs rectification. Relief granted under Income-tax Act. Respondents to bear costs.</h1> <h3>Walchand Nagar Industries Ltd. Versus VS Gaitonde</h3> The court allowed the petition, quashing the orders of the Income-tax Officer and the Commissioner. The Income-tax Officer was directed to rectify the ... - Issues:1. Whether the mistake pointed out by the petitioner qualifies as a mistake apparent from the record under section 35 of the Income-tax Act.2. Whether the delay in filing the application warrants dismissal.Analysis:1. Mistake Apparent from the Record:The petitioner sought to quash orders by the Income-tax authorities regarding excess dividend tax levied. The petitioner argued that the mistake of levying the tax was apparent from the record after the Supreme Court declared it invalid. The petitioner relied on previous Supreme Court decisions where mistakes of law were rectified under section 35 of the Act. The Revenue contended that the mistake must exist at the time of the order, not discovered later due to judicial pronouncements. The court referred to a similar case where an order was rectified due to a subsequent enactment. The court held that the mistake in the present case was apparent from the record as the levy was always invalid, making the authorities' failure to rectify the mistake erroneous.2. Delay in Filing the Application:The Revenue argued for dismissal due to an alleged inordinate delay in filing the application. The petitioner filed the application after the Commissioner's dismissal order in 1960, almost three years after the Income-tax Officer's order in 1958. However, the court rejected this argument, noting that the petitioner pursued the revision remedy diligently, and the delay was reasonable considering the circumstances. Therefore, the court found the delay not sufficient to dismiss the application.In conclusion, the court allowed the petition, quashing the orders of the Income-tax Officer and the Commissioner. The Income-tax Officer was directed to rectify the mistake regarding excess dividend tax in accordance with the court's observations. The court held that the mistake was apparent from the record, entitling the petitioner to relief under section 35 of the Income-tax Act. The respondents were ordered to bear the petitioner's costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
