9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (2) TMI 23X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he basis of gross unearned income ? 2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that since the question of levy of surcharge on unearned income required interpretation of the expression ' amount of unearned income included in the total income ' it cannot be said that the matter was free from argument and debate and consequently rectification proceedings were bad in law ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in confirming the view of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in holding that this was not a fit case for invoking the provisions of section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? 4. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that spec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 154 of the Act. On the merits, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner came to the conclusion that special surcharge was not leviable on the gross unearned income included in the total income of the year, but only on the unearned income to the extent of Rs. 53,412 for the assessment year 1968-69 and Rs. 66,632 for the assessment year 1967-68. In the appeal filed by the Revenue, the Tribunal following its earlier decision in the case of M. K. S. Shivraj Sinhji of Gondal in Income-tax Appeals Nos. 1651 and 1652 decided on September 14, 1978, confirmed the view taken by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Hence, the above reference at the instance of the Revenue. The questions covered in this reference stand concluded by the decision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... take in the computation of surcharge. Therefore, as held by the Supreme Court in T. S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Brothers [1971] 82 ITR 50, the mistake cannot be said to be a mistake apparent on the face of the record so that it could be rectified in exercise of the powers under section 154 of the Act. We are of the opinion that the Tribunal was right in holding that there was no mistake apparent on the face of the record which could have been rectified by the Income-tax Officer under section 154, and that the matter was not free from argument or debate. The Tribunal correctly relied upon the view taken by it earlier in M. K. S. Shivrajsinhji's case which has been accepted by this court in CIT v. M. K. S. Shivrajsinhji [1993] 201 ITR 451. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
