1979 (4) TMI 52

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ssessment under s. 143(3) of the IT Act,1961,hereinafter referred as the Act, for the asst. yr. 1960-61. 2. The assessee's primary contention is that the ITO 'B' Wd, Sangrur, hereinafter referred as the ITO, was incompetent to frame re-assessment under s. 143(3) of the Act when the return was filed in compliance to a notice under s. 22(2) of the Indian IT Act, 1922, hereinafter referred as the o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sessment under s. 143(3) simply could not be made as the return was filed under the old Act and even the assessment was framed under s. 2(23) of the old Act, as mentioned above. s. 297(2)(a) reads as follows: "Where a return of income has been filed before the commencement of this Act by any person for assessment year, proceedings for the assessment of that person for that year may be taken and .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t matter, i.e. assessment and the purpose of the provisions in both the Acts is the same. Where the same ITO had the jurisdiction to complete the assessment under one Act, the fact that the ITO invoked the provisions of the order would make no difference. An assessment completed under the Act of 1961 when it ought to have been completed under the Act of 1922 is not a nullity. If it suffers from a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r any reason, it would not follow that the provisional assessment also stood set aside. Where a regular assessment is set aside and as consequence an amount paid under a provisional assessment is refused to the assessee, there is a mistake apparent from the record which is glaring and obvious. The test is not the complexity of the issue but the simplicity of the mistake. The mistake in refunding t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ccording to s. 297(2)(a) of the Act it should have been taken that the Act had not been passed when the ITO was proceeding with the return, which had been filed before 1st April,1962. Following authorities are relevant in this connection:- Inter-Asian Footwear Corporation vs. AAC(3) Kalawati Devi Harlalka vs. CIT & Others(4), CIT vs. Allahabad Bank Ltd.(5),S.P. Jaiswal vs. CIT (6),Narinder Singh .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X