1974 (11) TMI 9

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....depreciation was allowable. The assessee felt aggrieved and went up in appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, who reduced the assessable income to Rs. 1,35,861. The extra shift allowance given by the Income-tax Officer was not modified. On February 21, 1968, the Income-tax Officer issued a notice under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, calling upon the assessee to show cause why the extra shift allowance be not rectified. The assessee filed an objection, but by an order dated March 28, 1968, the Income-tax Officer held that the extra shift allowance at 50 per cent. of the normal depreciation was wrongly allowed, that according to the correct interpretation of rule 8, the extra shift allowance had to be calculated proporti....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d of three hundred days so as to entitle to 50 per cent. of the normal depreciation was not accepted by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Raza Sugar Co. v. commissioner of Income-tax [1970] 76 ITR 541 (Al]) and that the calculation of extra shift allowance made by the Income-tax Officer in the original assessment order was, therefore, incorrect. The Tribunal further held that the language of the rule and the statement made in the remarks column were not so clear as to support what the Income-tax Officer had done in the rectification order ; that they are capable of more than one interpretation, that this was a case where the alleged error could come to the surface or may be discovered after employing a process of elucidation, debate, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....decision. The effect of the decision of the Supreme Court was that the levy of excess dividend tax was at no time good, and, therefore, the assessment order made by the Income-tax Officer levying excess dividend tax was bad on the date it was made. Such mistake was apparent from the record and was rectifiable. This case is not helpful, because in the present case no binding declaration of law had been made either by the High Court or by the Supreme Court when the rectification order was passed. There is no allegation of finding that the Income-tax Officer was aware even of the conflicting Opinion of the Tribunal at the time when he passed the order. Similarly, in S. A. L. Narayana Row, Commissioner of Income-tax v. Model Mills Nagpur Ltd....