9911796707
TMI Blog1965 (9) TMI 10X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ear 1958-59, by adding back Rs. 13,37,370. As a result of certain proceedings, to which it is not necessary to refer for the purpose of this application, an order was made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal on November 10, 1962, by which a sum of Rs. 13,37,370 was held to have been actually distributed by the petitioner, by crediting the accounts of the shareholders as dividends on shares held by them. It was further held by the Tribunal that the said sum had been actually distributed prior to the relevant year and for that reason the super-tax rebate at 30 per cent. should not be reduced in respect of the said sum of Rs. 13,37,370. This order of the Tribunal was followed by a notice under section 35 of the 1922 Act, being the said notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d declared for the purpose of reducing rebate on super-tax should, therefore, be the said sum of Rs. 19,37,170. It was this mistake which was sought to be rectified by the proceedings under section 35 of the 1922 Act. The judgment of this Bench, from which the petitioner now seeks to prefer an appeal to the Supreme Court, is a judgment of affirmance. The petitioner, therefore, has to satisfy us that the amount or value of the subject-matter in dispute between the parties in the appeal and still in dispute was and is not less than Rs. 20,000 or that the judgment or order involves directly or indirectly some claim or question in respect of property of the like amount or value. The petitioner has further to satisfy us that there is, some subs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... other words, the argument on behalf of the petitioner was that the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer to proceed under section 35 of the Act depended upon the existence of a mistake apparent from the record. On the facts of this case, however, there is hardly any scope for argument that there was no error on the records. The date of distribution of the dividend admittedly is December 19, 1957, and that being so and also having regard to the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal mentioned above, there could be no doubt or scope for debate or argument about the existence of a mistake on the records. The statute makes certain provisions for reduction of rebate on super-tax and, the provisions in the statute have to be complied with. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the date when the impugned order was made, namely, September 28, 1963, when the Income-tax Act, 1961, had already come into operation. The amended procedural law, therefore, should apply to the pending proceedings. This point is also covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Hazari Mal v. Income-tax Officer, Special Circle, Ambala Cantt. in which it was held that the exercise of the power will be referable to a jurisdiction which conferred validity upon it and not the jurisdiction under which it would be nugatory. The Income-tax Officer undoubtedly had the power to rectify the error under section 154 of the 1961 Act and, even if the proceedings were initiated by a notice under section 35 of the 1922 Act, it can no longer be said that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
