TMI Blog1973 (2) TMI 16X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uction to him under other heads - When the Commissioner allows assessee's claims and also rectifies omission in assessment, whether the order is valid when the final order was not prejudicial to the assessee - Dealing with section 33 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, which contains the same provision as section 264(1) of the present Act, the Privy Council stated that an order under section 33 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -tax Officer, Kottayam, for the year 1964-65, fixing his total income at Rs. 80,550. It consists of Rs. 15,470 under the head business and Rs. 65,007 under section 41(2) of the Act, namely, difference between sale price and written down value of machinery. The assessee filed a revision before the Commissioner, objecting to the above computation. He allowed the petitioner's objection regarding the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ission to include any income in the total income of the assessee did not fall within the ambit of the revision petition filed by the petitioner. Counsel submits that the Commissioner can revise an assessment in favour of the revenue only under section 263, and that it should be done within the period provided therein. I am unable to accept the above contention. The sole question for decision is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order should not be prejudicial to the assessee. Subject to this limitation, the Commissioner can correct any error appearing in the order of the subordinate authority. An order can be prejudicial to an assessee only if its net result is detrimental to him. Supposing there are two errors in an order sought to be revised, one in favour of the assessee and another against him ; and the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
