AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1986 (7) TMI 28
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reduced by 7 annas in the rupee exceeded the amount of the dividend declared and rebate at the rate of 1 anna per rupee was allowed on the amount of such excess. No order was made under section 23A(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. A tax demand for Rs. 7,30,558 was raised and was set off against the tax paid in advance and deducted at source. An appeal was filed against the said assessment before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who reduced the quantum of the total income by an order passed on July 13, 1957. A further appeal was preferred by the assessee against the order of assessment before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal which by its order dated February 22, 1961, allowed further relief to the assessee and the total income of the as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the rebate under the Finance Act of 1951 was not disallowed. On September 16, 1964, the Income-tax Officer passed an order giving effect to the order of the Tribunal dated November 14, 1961, setting aside the reassessment under section 34. The Income-tax Officer held that by reason of the order of the Tribunal setting aside the supplemental assessment, the fresh demand of Rs. 1,99,373 was no longer valid and allowed the refund of the said amount. The said refund had been adjusted against a demand raised under section 23A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the assessment year 1957-58. The Income-tax Officer thereafter came to hold the opinion that the order of refund passed on September 16, 1964, was prejudicial to the interests of Re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wal of rebate had been effected by the Income-tax Officer under the order passed under section 34 of the Act of 1922. As the said order under section 34 had been set aside, it was contended that the Income-tax Officer was right in cancelling the entire reassessment under section 34 and revoking the withdrawal of rebate. It was also contended that the rectification could be made only under section 35 of the Act of 1922 and not under section 154 of the Act of 1961. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner noted that in none of the earlier orders of assessment, rebate had been withdrawn. He held that the withdrawal of the rebate could only have been effected by rectifying within the period of limitation calculated from the orders of assessment an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l justice were thereby violated and accordingly the impugned order of rectification was invalid. It was further contended on behalf of the assessee that the entire order under section 34 which resulted in the withdrawal of rebate had been annulled by the Tribunal. Therefore, the revocation of such withdrawal was permissible and certainly the same was a controversial issue. The Tribunal held following a decision of the Madras High Court in the case of VR. C. RM. Adaikkappa Chettiar v. CIT [1970] 78 ITR 285, that the appeal filed by the Revenue before the Tribunal was not maintainable though the Appellate Assistant Commissioner rightly or wrongly had entertained an appeal from the original order of rectification. The Tribunal held further t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was right in cancelling the order under section 154 ? " The controversy raised in the first question is covered by a decision of this court in Income-tax Reference No. 420 of 1972 intituled CIT v. Shell Petroleum Co. Ltd. [1987] 164 ITR 346. The judgment was delivered on May 19, 1986. It was held in that case, following an earlier decision of this court in Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd. v. CIT [1979] 116 ITR 516, that though an order of assessment had been made under the Act of 1922, when the subsequent Act of 1961 came into force, the Income-tax Officer had jurisdiction to rectify the order of assessment passed under the earlier Act under section 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed under the Finance Act, 1951, and not in respect of any other mistake. This finding has not been challenged by the Revenue. The Tribunal has found further that no notice had been given to the assessee in respect of any other mistake occurring in the order dated September 10, 1964, except in respect of withdrawal of the rebate and the assessee had no opportunity to make his representations in respect of rectification of any other mistake. Sub-section (3) of section 154 makes it obligatory on the Income-tax Officer to give notice to the assessee of the proposed amendment which has the effect of enhancing the assessment or reducing the refund and reasonable opportunity has to be granted to the assessee of being heard. It was not contended o....