TMI Blog1982 (3) TMI 46X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r to rehear the revision petition and direct the ITO to include the sum of Rs. 2,30,000 in the income of the petitioner and to refund the sum of Rs. 11,500. There is a further prayer for direction to the ITO, A-Ward, Circle 1, Varanasi, to refund certain amounts. The petitioners, M/s. O.C.M. Ltd. (London), is a nonresident company. It has got three subsidiary companies which are incorporated and which carry on business in India, namely, O.C.M. (India) Pvt. Ltd., Amritsar, E. Hill and Company Pvt. Ltd., Mirzapur, and the East India Carpet Company Pvt. Ltd., Amritsar. The petitioner enjoyed income in India only from one source and that was by way of dividend from these three subsidiary companies. For the assessment year 1965-66, the accoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o pay any super-tax and that being so the deduction of super-tax at Rs. 11,500 from out of the interim dividend received from this subsidiary company as well, was not correct. Subsequently, when the principal agents of the petitioner discovered the mistake noted above, they brought these facts to the notice of the ITO by letter dated 30th September, 1967, and filed a revised return along with a letter in which a request was made for revising the assessment. They also filed the interim dividend warrants relating to this amount. It appears that the ITO did not take any action and accordingly the petitioner filed a revision before the Commissioner. Pending that revision they also made an application under s. 237 of the I.T. Act before the I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same was properly rejected ? " This question forms the subject-matter of consideration in Income-tax Reference No. 580 of 1974. To resume the narrative of the case the Commissioner by his order dated 28th November, 1969, dismissed the petitioner's revision under s. 264 of the Act. In his opinion there was no mistake in the order of the ITO so as to justify any interference by him and the revision was misconceived. The petitioner then came up to this court by way of a writ petition being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7528 of 1973. That petition was allowed on September 28, 1976. The order of the Commissioner dated 28th November, 1967, was quashed and he was directed to dispose of the revision petition afresh and according to law. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Stamp Act) is not only for the benefit of the Chief Controlling Authority but enures also for the benefit of the party affected by the assessment and can be demanded to he used also by such a party. It is coupled with a duty cast on him, as a public officer to do the right thing and when an important and intricate question of law in respect of the construction of a document arises, as a public servant it is his duty to make the reference. If he omits to do so, it is within the power of the court to direct him to discharge that duty and make a reference to the court. " In the present case there was no material or intricate question of law involved. The fact was not disputed that the petitioner had earned an interim dividend income of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... should apply his mind to the petitioner's plea that it had inadvertently omitted to include in its return the amount of interim dividend received by it from M/s. O.C.M. (India) Pvt. Ltd. and that the assessment made by the ITO without taking into account that amount of interim dividend should be revised and that the petitioner be given the benefit of the refund of the super-tax, which was deducted at source before the payment of the interim dividend to it. A clear verdict was given by this court that the order of the Commissioner suffered from a manifest mistake of law. Despite these observations and directions the Commissioner has persisted in taking the same view. Section 263 of the Act empowers the Commissioner to exercise his revisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of revision. Admittedly, the assessee had received an interim dividend from O.C.M. (India) Pvt. Ltd. By inadvertence it had omitted to mention this amount in its return. The ITO erred in not revising the assessment when he revised the assessment (sic), However: when the matter came in revision before the Commissioner he should have set right the mistake and directed the refund of Rs. 11,500 to the petitioner because this amount could not have been deducted, as the petitioner was not liable to pay any super-tax under the provision of law as applicable at that time. So far as the assessee's claim for a direction to refund the sum of Rs. 57,500 is concerned, we are not inclined to give Any such direction. The assessee never made a claim fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
