Revisional power and double-tax relief: refund proceedings fall within section 33B, and Ceylon's additional rate counts in relief computation.

The revisional phrase "any proceeding under this Act" was treated as wide enough to include refund proceedings, so the Commissioner's power under section 33B extended to refund orders passed by the Income-tax Officer. The fact that the relevant assessment years pre-dated the provision did not matter because the refund applications themselves were proceedings under the Act. On double taxation relief, the Ceylon levy under section 20(7) was treated as a single tax with a basic rate and an additional 3% rate, and the relief provision was read to include that additional rate for computation purposes. The references were answered against the assessee.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Commissioner could invoke section 33B to revise refund orders passed by the Income-tax Officer in relation to the relevant assessment years. (ii) Whether the additional rate of 3% under section 20(7)(a) of the Ceylon Income-tax Ordinance, 1932 formed part of the Ceylon tax for the purpose of double income-tax relief, and whether the corresponding exclusion under section 45(4)(b)(ii) applied.

Issue (i): Whether the Commissioner could invoke section 33B to revise refund orders passed by the Income-tax Officer in relation to the relevant assessment years.

Analysis: The expression "any proceeding under this Act" in section 33B was treated as wide enough to include refund proceedings. The jurisdiction depended on the nature of the proceeding actually before the Income-tax Officer, not on whether the assessment year pre-dated the section. Since the refund applications were filed in 1960 and 1961, they were proceedings under the Act within the meaning of section 33B. The Commissioner's revisional power therefore extended to those orders.

Conclusion: The Commissioner had jurisdiction under section 33B to revise the refund orders, and the challenge on that ground failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the additional rate of 3% under section 20(7)(a) of the Ceylon Income-tax Ordinance, 1932 formed part of the Ceylon tax for the purpose of double income-tax relief, and whether the corresponding exclusion under section 45(4)(b)(ii) applied.

Analysis: The Ceylon levy under section 20(7) was a single tax with two components, namely the basic unit rate and the additional rate of 3%. The reference in section 45(4)(b)(ii) to additional tax was held to cover the additional rate, and the statute treated the notions of rate and tax as synonymous for this purpose. The relief computation under the Ceylon and Indian double taxation scheme therefore required the additional rate to be taken into account in the manner indicated by the Ceylon ordinance.

Conclusion: The additional rate was includible for the purpose of computing the relevant Ceylon tax, and the Tribunal's view in favour of the Revenue was correct.

Final Conclusion: The references were answered against the assessee and the orders supporting the Revenue were sustained on both jurisdiction and double-tax-relief computation.

Ratio Decidendi: The phrase "any proceeding under the Act" in a revisional provision is broad enough to cover refund proceedings, and an additional rate expressly charged as part of a composite tax may be treated as part of that tax when the relief provision so requires.

---