TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1972 (4) TMI 24
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who reversed the order of the Income-tax Officer holding that, since the original assessment was made under the old Act, the rectification could also be made under the same Act and as an order of rectification had been made under the 1961 Act, therefore, it was bad. An appeal was taken by the revenue to the Income-tax Tribunal which also confirmed the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Commissioner of Income-tax requested the Tribunal for making reference of this matter to the High Court and the Tribunal referred the following question to this court : " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in confirming the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax cancelling the order made by the Income-tax Officer dated March 7, 1968, rectifying the order of assessment made on June 23, 1960, for the assessment year 1959-60 ? " The relevant assessment year in the present case is 1959-60. The learned counsel for the revenue has submitted that the Income-tax Tribunal and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner have not properly interpreted sub-section (5) of se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....been underlined. On the basis of the above phraseology he contends that in case any allowance for development rebate has been made wholly or partly to the assessee in respect of any machinery installed after 31st December, 1957, in any assessment year under section 33 of the 1961 Act or under the provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, that could be rectified under the aforesaid provision. According to him the words " development rebate made under the corresponding provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 ", make it clear that even if the development rebate had been allowed under the 1922 Act, the rectification can be made under the 1961 Act, if the machinery was installed after December 31, 1957. He has drawn our attention to the other sub-section of the said section 155 of the 1961 Act, wherein the said phraseology has not been used by the legislature. He has then argued that the development rebate originally allowed on account of any machinery, etc., shall be deemed to be wrongly allowed in case the assessee sells that machinery, etc., at any time before the expiry of 8 years from the end of the previous year in which the ship was acquired or the machinery or plant w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... November 4, 1953, that the assessment of the assessee-firm would be done by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle, Ambala, and not by the Income-tax Officer at Patiala, who was the competent authority under section 34 of the 1922 Act to assess the firm. In 1955 the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle, Ambala, issued a notice under section 34 of the Patiala Income-tax Act, 2001, to the assessee-firm to reopen the firm's assessment for the accounting year 1945-46. The assessee contested the notice on the ground that the officer at Ambala had no jurisdiction as it was not issued under the Patiala Income-tax Act, 2001, which applied to assessment year 1946-47, by virtue of the Act of 1950. The Supreme Court, in the above said circumstances, observed as follows : " The Patiala Income-tax Act contained provisions almost similar to sections 5(5) and 5(7A) of the Indian Income-tax Act. Sub-section (5) differed in this that the Commissioner of Income-tax was required to consult the Minister-in-charge before taking action under that sub-section. The only substantial difference in the latter sub-section was that the Explanation which was added to section 5(7A) of the Indian Income-tax Act a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....his jurisdiction to rectify the assessment under section 35 of the Act of 1922. To vest an officer with jurisdiction to rectify an assessment made under the Act of 1922, a notice under section 35 is not necessary. In this respect a proceeding for rectification under section 35 differs from a proceeding for reassessment under section 34 of the Act." The facts of that case were slightly different from the facts of the present case. In that case the notice was issued under section 154 of the 1961 Act, whereas the assessment was made under section 35 of the 1922 Act. The new order was challenged on the ground that the notice had been issued under section 154 of the 1961 Act, which the Income-tax Officer could not do and therefore, all the subsequent proceedings were without jurisdiction. The principle of law on the basis of which the reference was decided, however, was the same as that was laid down in Hazari Mal Kuthiala's case. The observations in the above case are fully applicable in the present case. The learned counsel for the revenue has also taken support for his arguments from the decisions of the Madras High Court in Vr. C. Rm. Adaikkappa Chettiar v. Commissioner of Income-....