9911796707
TMI Blog1973 (2) TMI 16X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... second respondent, the Commissioner of Income-tax, Kerala, in so far as he has included a sum of Rs. 13,607 in the total income of the assessee under the head capital gains while giving substantial reduction to him under other heads. The petitioner was assessed by the first respondent, the Income-tax Officer, Kottayam, for the year 1964-65, fixing his total income at Rs. 80,550. It consists of Rs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e petitioner was fixed at Rs. 70,160 as against Rs. 80,550 fixed by the Income-tax Officer. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the Commissioner acted without jurisdiction in including in the total income of the assessee the sum of Rs. 13,607 as capital gains, since the question of omission to include any income in the total income of the assessee did not fall within the ambit of the rev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iry or cause such inquiry to be made and, subject to the provisions of this Act, may pass such order thereon, not being an order prejudicial to the assessee, as he thinks fit. " The power of the Commissioner under the above provision is wide. It is subject only to one limitation, viz., that the order should not be prejudicial to the assessee. Subject to this limitation, the Commissioner can corre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Tribune Trust, Lahore . 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 the Act can be said to be prejudicial to the assessee, only when he is, as a result of it, in a different or worse position than that in which he was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
