1957 (9) TMI 69

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ajagopala Ayyangar, J. This is a petition seeking the quashing of an order of the Income-tax Officer, dated February 24, 1956; by which the assessment of the petitioner was revised under section 35 of the Income-tax Act. The petitioner was a non-resident and for the assessment year 1951-52, an order was passed computing his income at Rs. 11,703 and levying income-tax at the rate appropriate ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sion was made by including those items by an order passed on February 24, 1956. There is no dispute that if the assessee was a non-resident who had not exercised the option under section 17(1) (which was the situation of the petitioner) super-tax at the rate charged in the order dated February 24, 1956, and the surcharge thereon ought really to have been added under the provisions of the Indian....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., there is no reason or justification for denying jurisdiction to the Income-tax Officer to proceed under section 35. The next point urged was that section 35(1) provided for a four year period of limitation within which the revision could take place. Learned counsel urged that though the original order of assessment was revised on February 24, 1956, well within the four year period prescribed ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eedings are taken for the recovery of the tax which becomes payable as a result of the revision effected by order passed under section 35(1), there ought to be notice of demand under section 29. On the terms of section 35(1), a limitation is prescribed only for the making of the order of rectification. When once that is made, an order for refund under sub-section (3) or that for payment of the tax....