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>High Court upholds rectification order under Income-tax Act, deeming penalty legal. Judgment dissemination ordered.</h1> <h3>Hira Lal Sutwala Versus Commissioner of Income-tax</h3> Hira Lal Sutwala Versus Commissioner of Income-tax - [1965] 56 ITR 339 (ALL.) Issues:1. Legality of the order imposing penalty under section 46(1) of the Income-tax Act.2. Legality and validity of the order of rectification passed by the Income-tax Officer under section 35 of the Act.Analysis:Issue 1: Legality of Penalty OrderThe case involved an individual assessee who was a partner in two distinct firms. The Income-tax Officer initially assessed the assessee based on the aggregate income of both firms, treating one as a branch of the other. Subsequently, on appeal, it was determined that the two firms were distinct entities. The Income-tax Officer rectified the assessment order based on the reduced income of one firm but failed to include the income from the other firm in the assessee's total income. The Income-tax Officer then imposed a penalty on the assessee for non-compliance with the demand notice. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal against the penalty order, leading to the submission of a statement of the case to the High Court.Issue 2: Legality and Validity of Rectification OrderThe High Court analyzed the provisions of section 35(1) and section 34(1) of the Income-tax Act. It was established that the Income-tax Officer had the authority to rectify mistakes apparent from the record under section 35(1) even if income had escaped assessment. In this case, the Income-tax Officer failed to rectify the initial assessment order by not including the income from the second firm, which was a mistake apparent on the record. The subsequent rectification, after being informed of the assessee's share in the income from the second firm, was deemed valid under section 35(1) as it rectified an apparent mistake in the assessment order.Conclusion:The High Court answered Question No. 2 in the affirmative, stating that the rectification order was legal and valid. Consequently, Question No. 1 was also answered in the affirmative, as there was no shown illegality in the penalty order if the rectification was deemed legal. The High Court directed the dissemination of the judgment to the relevant authorities and ordered the assessee to pay the costs of the reference.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
