| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1977 SLG 965 1977 SLD 965 (1977) 106 ITR 691 |
Gujarat High Court
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 29 OF 1971 OCTOBER 11, 12, 15, 1973
B.J. DIVAN, C.J. AND B.K. MEHTA, J.
K.H. Kaji and G.G. Mehta for the Petitioner. R.D. Pathak for the
Respondent.
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 29 OF 1971 OCTOBER 11, 12, 15, 1973
B.J. DIVAN, C.J. AND B.K. MEHTA, J.
K.H. Kaji and G.G. Mehta for the Petitioner. R.D. Pathak for the
Respondent.
V.P. Minocha, Income Tax Officer
v.
Law:
Section:
Section 34, read with section 155 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [Corresponding to section 10(2)(vib), read with section 35 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922] - Depreciation allowance and development rebate - Conditions for - Assessment year 1964-65 - Before commencement of 1961 Act, assessee-firm had been allowed development rebate in respect of certain machinery under section 10(2)(vib) of 1922 Act for assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62 - During course of assessment proceedings for assessment year 1964-65, ITO having found that said machinery had been transferred by firm before expiry of statutory period prescribed 1922 Act, he, by an order dated 6-11-1965, withdrew rebate granted for assessment years 1960-61 and 1962-62 under section 155 of 1961 Act - On appeal, said order was upheld by AAC - Tribunal, by its order dated 5-3-1970, held that appeal to AAC against order of ITO was incompetent and, thus, confirmed order of ITO - Subsequently, Tribunal passed an order for rectification on 26-8-1970 setting aside its earlier order purportedly under section 234(2) of 1961 Act and directed that appeals of assessee be heard afresh - Whether, since return of income for assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62 was filed before commencement of 1961 Act, proceedings for assessment of assessee in connection with said return might be taken and continued as if 1961 Act had not been passed - Held, yes - Whether, therefore, provisions of section 155 of 1961 Act including section 34(3)(b) did not apply and order passed by ITO dated 8-11-1965 might be deemed to be an order of rectification of mistake under section 35(1) of 1922 Act by fiction of section 35(11) - Held, yes - Whether further, assessee having no right to appeal against an order of rectification under 1922 Act, appeal before AAC was not competent - Held, yes - Whether, therefore, Tribunal was in error in holding that there was a mistake apparent from record in its order dated 5-3-1970 and, said order was to be quashed and that of 5-3-1970 was to be restored - Held, yes FACTS The assessee was a registered firm. While dealing with assessment proceedings of the assessee under 1961 Act, for the year 1964-65, the ITO found…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492