TMI Blog1972 (9) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtificate against the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court refusing to interfere with the order of the Income-tax Officer made under section 35(5) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter called the "Act"). The appellant was assessed in the status of Hindu joint family for the years 1949-50 and 1950-51. In the course of the assessment proceedings for 1950-51 it was represented to the Income-tax Officer that the petitioner had an eight annas share in the firm of M/s. Sriram Harichandradas at Bombay. The Income-tax Officer, therefore, while completing the assessment for the said year on October 30, 1953, specifically mentioned therein that the assessment order was subject to rectification under section 35 of the Act. The assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of books. On that date the assessee did not appear at all. As a consequence, on January 29, 1963, he passed a final order estimating the total income of the firm of M/s. Sriram Harichandradas at Rs. 26, lakhs. The Income-tax Officer thereafter passed the rectification order under section 35(5) of the Act on March 16, 1965, against the appellant by including an income of Rs. 13 lakhs as his share of the income derived from the firm. The validity of this order was challenged in the writ petition in which it was contended that the assessment under section 35(5) of the Act was barred inasmuch as the rectification was made after four years from the date of the final order under section 33A(2). Before the High Court two questions were raised, nam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... This order could not be the final order because the Commissioner having set aside the estimate made by the Income-tax Officer already had not himself substituted any estimate for the estimate made by the Income-tax Officer. In pursuance of that order the Income-tax Officer had by his order dated January 29, 1963, substituted his estimate which though was the same was none the less a fresh order. The final order, therefore, is not the one, as contended by the learned advocate, made on August 31, 1955, but the one made by the Income-tax Officer on January 29, 1963. In this view the four years' period which is prescribed under section 35(5) of the Act is to be computed from the final order made by the Income-tax Officer on January 29, 1963. If ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
