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 rules appellate authority must amend orders, not original authority.</h1> <h3>Mather And Co. Private Limited Versus Income-Tax Officer, Companies Circle, Ernakulam.</h3> Mather And Co. Private Limited Versus Income-Tax Officer, Companies Circle, Ernakulam. - [1969] 71 ITR 247 Issues:1. Jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer to rectify the order under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. Merger of the original order passed by the Income-tax Officer in the appellate order confirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.3. Interpretation of section 154(1)(a) and (b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.Detailed Analysis:1. The petitioner challenged the proceedings taken by the Income-tax Officer under section 154(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, seeking to quash an order passed against them for the assessment year 1957-58 under section 23A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The Income-tax Officer rectified the order, enhancing the super tax amount, which led to the petitioner filing a writ petition questioning the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer to initiate rectification proceedings under section 154. The court held that the Income-tax Officer had no jurisdiction to rectify the order as it had merged in the appellate order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, as per the provisions of section 154(1)(a) and (b).2. The court relied on precedents and legal principles to establish that once an order passed by the Income-tax Officer is taken up in appeal and confirmed by the appellate authority, the original order merges in the appellate order. The court cited cases such as A.Haji Abdul Shulkoor and Co. v. State of Madras and Commissioner of Income-tax v. Amritlal Bhogilal & Co. to support the principle that the appellate decision supersedes the original order, and only the appellate authority can amend the order thereafter. The court emphasized that in the present case, the original order under section 23A ceased to exist separately once it was confirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.3. The court interpreted section 154(1)(a) and (b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which empowers the Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to rectify mistakes apparent from the record. It highlighted that the power to amend an order passed in appeal is vested in the appellate authority, as specified in the provisions of the Act. The court clarified that the Income-tax Officer's jurisdiction to rectify orders is limited to those passed by him, and once an order is confirmed by the appellate authority, only the appellate decision prevails. The judgment provided a detailed analysis of the legal provisions and precedents to support the conclusion that the Income-tax Officer had no jurisdiction to rectify the order in question.In conclusion, the court allowed the petition, quashed the rectification proceedings initiated by the Income-tax Officer, and left open the option for the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to initiate fresh action under section 154(1)(b). The judgment clarified the legal principles regarding the jurisdiction of authorities to rectify orders under the Income-tax Act and emphasized the importance of appellate decisions superseding original orders in such matters.
TaxTMI 