Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1979 (2) TMI 84

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sold a major portion of the aforesaid lands to different persons for a total sum of Rs. 7,51,512 and in its return of income declared the aforesaid amount as the full value of the consideration received by it for the purposes of computation of the capital gains. In the course of assessment proceedings respondent No. 1, the ITO, referred the valuation to the Valuation Officer under s. 55A of the I.T. Act, 1961, and thereafter in the assessment order dated March 22, 1974, he recorded, inter alia, as follows : " I have come to know that there is no possibility of getting the valuation report by 31-3-74. Since this is a time-barring assessment, I cannot wait for his report for the purpose of this assessment. I, therefore, accept the value .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n order setting aside or enhancing or modifying the assessment or cancelling the said order of assessment and directing a fresh assessment. " The petitioners have, therefore, challenged the validity of this proceeding on several grounds and their learned advocate, Mr. R. N. Bajoria, has pressed all those grounds before me, but I would like to deal only with one ground and keep the other grounds completely open. As the valuation report was not in existence at the time respondent No. 1 passed the aforesaid order, Mr. Bajoria argues that respondent No. 4 had no jurisdiction to initiate the revisional proceeding urder s. 263 of the Act, on the basis of the valuation report. In support of this contention he places reliance on several cases u .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ade the assessment in view of the observation of the Privy Council in CIT v. Khemchand Ramdas [1938] 6 ITR 414, on the words " mistake apparent from the record " used in s. 35 of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, and followed by the Supreme Court in M. K. Venkatachalam, ITO v. Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Co. Ltd, [1958] 34 ITR 143, Maharana Mills (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [1959] 36 ITR 350 and Mahendra Mills Ltd. v. P. B. Desai, AAC [1975] 99 ITR 135. But I am not impressed by his arguments based on these decisions. The provision of s. 263(1) of the Act has to be understood on its own language and in the context of the revisional jurisdiction of the Commissioner conferred by it and also of the scheme of the Act and not on the basis of the words " mis .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 35 of the 1922 Act, or s. 154 of the 1961 Act, any subsequent relevant material or an order of an appellate or higher authority replacing the order appealed from must form part of the record of the proceedings in view of the aforesaid cases cited by Mr. Pal and also in view of the expression " any mistake apparent from the record " used in these two sections. Whereas s. 263(1) of the Act uses the words " is erroneous " and not the words " has become subsequently erroneous ". Under this section, the Commissioner may call for and examine " the record " of the " proceeding " in order to consider in his revisional jurisdiction as to whether the order in question by the ITO " is erroneous ". Therefore, he is to call for the " record " of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... this section. Further, in view of s. 16(6) of the W.T. Act, 1957, read with s. 55A of the I.T. Act, 1961, the subsequent order passed by the Valuation Officer in the reference under s. 55A of the Act must necessarily form part of the record for the purposes of s. 147(b) and also of s. 154 of the 1961 Act. Therefore, the order of the respondent No. 1 was not an erroneous order, nor was it prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. His order is also beneficial to the interests of the revenue, for it was the only order that he could pass at that time as otherwise the assessment would have been wholly time barred. He had also the power to act either under s. 147(b) or s. 154 of the Act after receiving the copy of the order of the Valuation .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates