TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1964 (2) TMI 92
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d?" The assessee, an individual, is a partner in two firms: (1) Ganesh Prasad Dalal (which for the sake of brevity will be known as firm "G"), and (2) Bhojnagarwala Brothers (which for the sake of brevity will be known as firm "B"). Now it is established that these are two distinct firms but at one time there was a dispute whether they were distinct firms, whether one of them was not a branch of the other. For the assessment year 1943-44, the assessee submitted a return showing separately his incomes from the partnership in the two firms. According to the return the two firms existed distinctly from each other. An Income-tax Officer assessed the firm "G" on the incomes from the two firms holding that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....into consideration his income from firm "B" and did not explain why he did not take it into consideration. Later an Income-tax Officer assessed firm "B" on its income and informed the Income-tax Officer assessing the assessee of this fact. According to the assessment order passed against firm "B" the assessee's share in the income from it was higher than that shown by him in his return. The Income-tax Officer once more rectified the assessment order passed against the assessee and added to the income on which he had assessed him previously the income derived by him from firm "B". Thereafter, he issued a notice of demand for the excess income-tax. The assessee did not comply with the notice of dema....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er can be assessed even before the firm is assessed on its income. Section 35(5) was, however, added in 1953 and is not applicable in the instant case. Section 34(1) is to the effect that if the Income-tax Officer has reason to believe that income chargeable to income-tax has escaped assessment for any year he may serve upon the assessee a notice containing certain requirements and proceed to assess or reassess him on the escaped income. Section 35(1) is to the effect that the Income-tax Officer may within a certain time of the assessment order passed by him "on his own motion rectify any mistake apparent from the record . . . of the . . . assessment ..." The circumstances in which an order under section 34(1) and an order under ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not intended to be, and is not stated to have been conveyed by him to the Income-tax Officer assessing the assessee. Since he took the aggregate of the incomes to be the income of firm "G", he could have informed the other Income-tax Officer only that the income was of firm "G". So, though the income included incomes from both the firms, the Income-tax Officer assessing the assessee had to take it to be the income from firm "G" only and ought to have added to it the income from firm "B", of which the assessee was a member according to the return itself. His failure to add it is not explained by anything on the record and must be attributed to an oversight on his part. In other words, there was a mista....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....subsequently the Income-tax Officer assessing firm "B" informed him of the assessee's share in its income, he discovered the mistake in the assessment order and the first rectification and acquired jurisdiction under section 35(1) to rectify the assessment order once more. He was not deprived of the jurisdiction by the mere fact that he had rectified the assessment order once previously. The previous rectification did not at all touch the apparent mistake rectified by him subsequently. Rectification of one apparent mistake under section 35(1) does not prevent subsequent rectification of another apparent mistake under the same provision. It was immaterial either that the assessee's return itself had shown that he derived in....