TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1963 (12) TMI 30
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....termined that a refund of ₹ 12,667-8-0 was due to the assessee. It appears that the first Ceylon assessment was also made in 1947, and a tax of ₹ 2,21,756 was levied and paid. There was an additional assessment made some time later and the tax computed as due was also paid. The final assessment was, however, made by the Ceylon authorities only on May 23, 1955. The income was determined as ₹ 2,93,247, and the tax as ₹ 1,45,828. The Ceylon authorities granted double taxation relief of ₹ 53,616.50 nP. This was computed on the basis of the Indian income-tax of ₹ 1,07,678-8-0 less a sum of ₹ 455-8-0 being Indian tax on Indian income not assessed in Ceylon. The net figure of tax computed for the purpose of granting double tax relief was ₹ 1,07,223, half of the above was granted as double taxation relief by the Ceylon authorities. From 1948 onwards, correspondence had been going on between the assessee on the one hand and the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle, Madurai, on the other. In a letter dated May 26, 1948, the assessee enclosed a statement giving full particulars of his income and tax liability for the years 1942-46. He pointed ou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the appeal as incompetent. On a further appeal, the Tribunal was apparently inclined to agree with the view taken by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. It held, however, that if the letter dated December 4, 1951, was regarded as a regular application for double taxation relief, that application was out of time. It declined to consider the point whether the very first letter of the assessee dated May 26, 1948, would constitute a valid application for relief. It accordingly dismissed the appeal. On the application of the assessee under section 66(1) of the Act to refer a question to the High Court being dismissed the matter came before this court by way of an application under section 66(2) of the Act. This court pointed out that the letter dated May 26, 1948, was consistent with the form prescribed by the rules to ask for relief from double taxation and that this feature had been overlooked by the authorities and also by the Tribunal. The Tribunal was accordingly directed to refer the question set out above, and in preparing the statement of the case, the Tribunal was asked to record a specific finding whether the application dated May 26, 1948, satisfied the requirements of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....particular manner. Rule 4 requires that the application for refund of income-tax under these rules shall be made to the Income-tax Officer of the district in which he ordinarily resides and that such application may be presented by the applicant in person or by a duly authorised agent or may be sent by post and shall be in Form I appended to the Rules. Rule 5 is word for word the same as section 50 of the Income-tax Act. It enacts a period of limitation, and it lays down that no claim for refund of income-tax or super-tax shall be allowed unless it is made within four years from the last day of the financial year commencing next after the expiry of the previous year in which the income arose, accrued or was received. We may notice in passing that, nowhere in section 50 of the Act is there any insistence upon any particular form in which the claim to refund has to be made. Section 50 enacts only a period of limitation which is embodied in identical terms in rule 5. We have thus the position that by rule 3 a right to refund is created which, in the absence of a claim made within four years from a particular date, can no longer be enforced. It is the intermediate rule 4 which prescrib....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssioner of Income-tax v. Burmah Oil Company [1963] 47 I.T.R. 25, a similar question arose. The assessee, a nonresident company, in its return of income showed particulars of both Indian and foreign income. But the foreign income was not included in the total income for the assessments for certain years, as the decision in the Raleigh Investment case [1943] 11 I.T.R. 393 (F.C.) held the field. While the matter was pending in the courts, the assessee sent two letters to the Income-tax Officer claiming relief from double taxation in respect of the United Kingdom tax. This was accepted as a provisional claim. Subsequently, the records were transferred to Bombay, where the decision in the Raleigh Investment case [1943] 11 I.T.R. 393 (F.C.) was not binding, and proceedings under section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act were started for all the assessment years. Revised returns were submitted along with the claim for double taxation relief. The Income-tax Officer accepted the earlier letters as provisional claims and granted relief thereon. But, in so far as the revised assessments were concerned, he took the view that the claims were time-barred and were not properly made in the prescribe....