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

1971 (9) TMI 66

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... No. 2570 of 1969 is represented by Mr. Sardar Bahadur. Hence, the opposing view-points on that question have been fully debated before us. Now coming to the facts of the case, the respondent is the manager of a Nambudiri illom. That illom was assessed to tax under the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950 (hereinafter to be referred to as " the Act "), in respect of the assessment years 1958-59, 1959-60, 1960-61 and 1961-62. All the assessments were made on March 14, 1962. Section 3 of the Act provides : " Agricultural income-tax at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule to this Act shall be charged for each financial year in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act, on the total agricultural income of the pre .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... itted sub-section (4). That amendment came into force with effect from April 1, 1958. Amended sub-section (3) reads : " In the case of a Hindu undivided family consisting of more than five members entitled to claim a share on partition and whose agricultural income exceeds six thousand rupees, the tax shall be assessed at the average rate applicable to the share of the agricultural income due to five members of the family or to six thousand rupees whichever is higher." The amendment was given retrospective effect. Subsequent to that amendment, the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, by having recourse to his power under section 36 of the Act, corrected the assessment in accordance with the amended provision. Section 35 of the Act provide .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... at Act. This court had occasion to deal with the scope of section 35 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, in M. K. Venkatachalam v. Bombay Dyeing and Mfg. Co. Ltd. Therein the Income-tax Officer, by his order dated October 9, 1952, assessed the assessee for the assessment year 1952-53, and gave him credit for Rs. 50,603-15-0 as representing interest on tax paid in advance under section 18A(5) of the Income-tax Act. On May 24, 1953, the Indian Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1953, came into force adding a proviso to section 18A(5) of the Act to the effect that the assessee was entitled to interest not on the whole of the advance tax paid by him but only on the difference between the payment made and the amount assessed. The amendment Act provided .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... fered from a mistake apparent from the record. Dealing with the scope of section 35 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, Gajendragadkar J., as he then was, speaking for the court, observed : " It is in the light of this position that the extent of the Income-tax Officer's power under section 35 to rectify mistakes apparent from the record must be determined ; and, in doing so, the scope and effect of the expression 'mistake apparent from the record' has to be ascertained. At the time when the Income-tax Officer applied his mind to the question of rectifying the alleged mistake, there can be no doubt that he had to read the principal Act as containing the inserted proviso as from April 1, 1952. If that be the true position then the order wh .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mpany. It was assessed to income-tax for the assessment year 1953-54 under the provisions of the. Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. As per the assessment order dated June 30, 1955, the amount of depreciation allowed under section 10(2)(vi) of the Act was Rs. 3,48,105. By his order of February 27, 1956, the Income-tax Officer corrected the written down value of the different properties of the assessee and determined the total allowable depreciation to be Rs. 1,94,074. The (appellant) assessee challenged the order dated February 27, 1956, on the grounds, inter alia, (1) that he was not given a written notice of the intended rectification of the written down value, (2) that the provisions under which the Income-tax Officer acted, i.e., section 35 o .....

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