TMI Blog1979 (8) TMI 95X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d". The so-called question of law, as suggested by the Commr., is misleading. The issue before the Tribunal was whether when a return was filed in pursuance to a notice under s. 22(2) of the Indian IT Act, 1922, hereinafter referred to as the old Act, the assessment proceedings and consequent order could be validly passed under s. 143(3) of the Act and the Tribunal held that it could not be done and thereby cancelled the assessment under s. 143(3) of the Act. We are not inclined to give any reference because the answer being self-evident, a reference would be only of academic in character. 2. The respondent, a HUF, filed a return declaring loss at Rs. 6,047 for the asst. yr. 1960-61 on 11th July, 1960 in pursuance to a notice under s. 22 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... may be noticed here as follows: "Where a return of income has been field before the commencement of this Act for any asst. yr. proceedings for the assessment of the person for that year may be taken and continued as if this Act had not been passed." For the Revenue, the Tribunal was referred to the Full Bench judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of R.A. Boga vs. AAC Another(1) and the judgment in the case of Kishan Workers Transport Coop. Society Ltd. vs. CIT(2). The Tribunal noticed that in the case of R.A. Boga, the judgment in the case of Kishan Workers Transport Coop. Society Ltd. was followed. The Tribunal reproduced the following head notes in the case of R.A. Boga in its order: "An assessment cannot b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essment also stood set aside. Where a regular assessment to set aside and at a 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 the amount could be rectified under s. 35 of the Act of 1922. According to the Tribunal the authorities cited for the Revenue were not applicable to the case. The Tribunal held that the assessment could be framed under the Old Act only as if the IT Act, 1961 had not been passed and in the respondents case various notices were placed before the Tribunal. Therefore, the Tribunal opined that there was a diff ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
