1956 (11) TMI 27

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....26th March, 1954, to the respondents directing them to show cause why the assessment should not be revised on the ground that part of the turnover of their business escaped assessment. The respondents filed their accounts but the officer without accepting them by order dated 11th June, 1953, determined the assessment to the best of his judgment. While by his order dated 10th March, 1952, he fixed the turnover at Rs. 25,534 by his order dated 11th June, 1953, he increased it to Rs. 83,118-10-0. The assessees preferred an appeal against that order to the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes but it was dismissed. On further appeal, the Appellate Tribunal held that the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer had no jurisdiction to revise the assessmen....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uestion, therefore, is whether the amendment is retrospective in operation. A similar question arose on a construction of the provisions of the Limitation Act, in Lakshminarayana Chetty v. Additional Income-tax Officer [1956] An. W.R. 243.  Under section 35 of that Act as it originally stood, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner or the Income-tax Officer may, within four years from the date of the order of assessment or other orders mentioned in the section made by him, rectify any mistake apparent from the record. But, under the amendment inserted by Act XXV of 1953, if on assessment or re-assessment of a firm any reduction or enhancement is made in the income of the firm and it is found that the share of the partner in the profit or ....