TMI Blog1994 (10) TMI 123X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gainst the assessees under Voluntary Disclosure Scheme of 1977. (2) In all these appeals the Assessing Officer had refused to grant this deduction to the assessees in view of the Gujarat High Court decision in the case of CWT v. Ahmed Ibrahim Sahigara [1974] 93 ITR 288. All these orders were passed by the Assessing Officer on 15-12-1978. (3) All the assessees of this group of appeal filed petitions under section 35 of the Wealth-tax Act on 27-2-1979 inviting attention of the Assessing Officer to the unreported decision of the I.T.A.T. in the case of Sr. Inder Singh v. ITO. (4) In the year 1981 the Hon'ble Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Ahmed Ibrahim Sahigra Dhoraji v. CWT [1981] 129 ITR 314 (SC). (5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the allowance of tax liability under section 2(m) of the Act based on the disclosure made by the assessees under Voluntary Disclosure Scheme. Even if the Supreme Court has settled the issue the fact remains that there were conflicting decisions at the time when the Assessing Officer passed the order and, therefore, there was no mistake apparent from record. He therefore, relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of T.S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Bros. [1971] 82 ITR 50 to submit that the order of the Assessing Officer was rightly not rectified under section 35 of the Act as the rectification would have involved detailed arguments and there was no mistake apparent from record. 4. The assessee's counsel, however, submitted th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee can bring the case within the four corners of the legal provision for rectification. It has been held that the principle of retrospective legislation is not applicable to the decisions of the Supreme Court declaring the law or interpreting a provision in a statute. The law is laid down or a provision in a statute is Interpreted by the Supreme Court only when there is a debate or doubt on the interpretation of any provision of a statute requiring the same by the Supreme Court or when there is a conflict of judicial opinion on a provision of a statute between the different High Courts of India which is required to be resolved and settled by the Supreme Court. Yet if the Central Board of Direct Taxes issues an instruction to the in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epartmental authorities were bound to follow the same. As the matters stand today though the quasi-judicial function of the income-tax authority cannot be controlled by the Board in a particular case but they can be so controlled to the extent that general directions are issued by the Board--Nathuram Kapoor v. ITO [1979] 120 ITR 257 (MP). There have been several instances where the Board has waived the provisions of Income-tax Act in favour of the assessees. There have been various cases where the various time limits fixed under Income-tax Act caused genuine hardship to the affected assessees. The Central Board of Direct Taxes in exercise of the powers vested in them under clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 119 of the Income-tax Act c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
