1965 (5) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT

Whether there was nothing to show that the Income-tax Officer had purported to exercise his discretion when he passed the order of assessment and did not impose any liability for payment of interest under section 18A(6)?

Held that:- It is unfortunate that the Commissioner in considering the matter under section 33A assumed that the amending Act 25 of 1953 had no retrospective operation and rejected the claim of the assessee on the ground that at the date when the order of assessment was made, Act 25 of 1953 had not come into operation, and that the Act became effective as from December 1953, when the rules were framed. In so holding, the Commissioner committed an error of law apparent on the face of the record. The High Court was therefore right in setting aside the order which was passed by the Commissioner without considering the proviso to section 18A(6) which was clearly applicable to the case of the assessee and in the light of rule 48 which was enacted in pursuance of that proviso. Appeal dismissed.