1998 (3) TMI 56 - HC - Income Tax

Court clarifies jurisdiction under Companies Surtax Act & rules on depreciation values; emphasizes prompt resolution

The court clarified that the authority had jurisdiction to issue the notice under section 13 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, as it applies ... Surtax, Rectification Of Mistakes, Notice Issues:1. Jurisdiction of the authority to issue notice under section 13 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964.2. Interpretation of rule 1(iii) of the Second Schedule to the Act in relation to depreciation values.3. Validity of the notice issued by the authority based on a reported ruling.4. Delay in approaching the court instead of the concerned authority.Analysis:1. The petition challenged a notice issued under section 13 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax. The petitioner contended that the authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the notice as there was no apparent mistake in the assessment order. The court clarified that section 13 applies where a mistake is apparent from the record, and the petitioner could challenge the notice's validity before the concerned authority instead of rushing to court.2. The dispute revolved around the application of rule 1(iii) of the Second Schedule to the Act regarding depreciation values. The order passed by the authority deducted Rs. 1,16,16,134 based on a difference between book depreciation and depreciation allowed by the Department. The petitioner argued that the authority's interpretation of the rule was incorrect, emphasizing that only the difference in depreciation values for a particular year should be considered.3. The authority relied on a ruling of the Bombay High Court in arriving at the deducted amount. The petitioner contended that the notice was not based on sound footing and challenged its validity. However, the court noted that the authority acted within its legal rights in issuing the notice based on its interpretation of the ruling. The petitioner was advised to address the matter with the authority and present their arguments there.4. The court highlighted the delay caused by the petitioner in approaching the court instead of the concerned authority. Despite the passage of nine years, the court refrained from delving into the correctness of the notice, as that was the authority's task. The petitioner was directed to engage with the authority promptly to resolve the issue, indicating that the authority should handle the matter efficiently. The writ petition was disposed of without costs, leaving the petitioner to pursue the matter with the authority.