9911796707
TMI Blog1957 (9) TMI 69X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etition seeking the quashing of an order of the Income-tax Officer, dated February 24, 1956; by which the assessment of the petitioner was revised under section 35 of the Income-tax Act. The petitioner was a non-resident and for the assessment year 1951-52, an order was passed computing his income at ₹ 11,703 and levying income-tax at the rate appropriate to an assessee who had not opted un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... items by an order passed on February 24, 1956. There is no dispute that if the assessee was a non-resident who had not exercised the option under section 17(1) (which was the situation of the petitioner) super-tax at the rate charged in the order dated February 24, 1956, and the surcharge thereon ought really to have been added under the provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act, as it stood in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for denying jurisdiction to the Income-tax Officer to proceed under section 35. The next point urged was that section 35(1) provided for a four year period of limitation within which the revision could take place. Learned counsel urged that though the original order of assessment was revised on February 24, 1956, well within the four year period prescribed still no notice of demand of the tax, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the tax which becomes payable as a result of the revision effected by order passed under section 35(1), there ought to be notice of demand under section 29. On the terms of section 35(1), a limitation is prescribed only for the making of the order of rectification. When once that is made, an order for refund under sub-section (3) or that for payment of the tax under sub-section (4) are only conseq ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
