TMI Blog1982 (4) TMI 21X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to the assessee under s. 154 of the said Act, no objection was taken by the assessee to the proposed application and the ITO proceeded to correct the mistake apparent on the record by raising the, additional super-tax liability by his order dated 20th May, 1969. On and appeal to the AAC, it was contended, by the assessee that as the action for rectification was taken under s. 154 of the said Act, it was without jurisdiction and invalid on the round that the said Act had no application to the case, the assessment being in respect of a year prior to the coming into effect of the said Act and that the rectification if at all could have been done only under s. 35 of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922. These contentions were rejected by the AAC. On an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Act, 1922, it was open to the ITO to rectify an order of assessment passed under s. 23A of that Act and that merely because the order was purported to be made under s. 154 of the said Act and not s. 35 of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, that did not invalidate the order. In support of his contention, Mr. Joshi relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. I. K. Commercial Corporation Ltd. [1976] 105 ITR 219. In that case it was held by the Supreme Court that although in a narrow sense an order under s. 23A of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, may not be called an order of assessment, it is a part of the assessment proceeding and may be called supplementary assessment order directing a company to pay an additional amount of super-tax on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s made in the order of rectification to s. 154 of the said Act and not s. 35(1) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, that would not make any difference to the validity of the order, because it is clear that the power sought to be exercised by the ITO was the power of rectification. It only so happens that there was a reference to a wrong section, namely, s. 154 of the said Act, in the order. As far as the assessee is concerned, unfortunately, the counsel for the assessee has not appeared before us at all, although the matter was on the Board and the hearing commenced on 14th April, 1982. It remained part-heard on that day, and it has thereafter reached hearing today, when, too, the counsel for the assessee is not present. We do not have, therefore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
