COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BOMBAY versus M/S. AMRITLAL BHOGILAL & CO.

Citation: [1959] 1 S.C.R. 713 · Decided: 28-04-1958 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.L. VENKATARAMA AIYYAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

s.c.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
had been made in stating that no super-tax was 
r95'8 
1eviable. This decision clearly shows that the sub- v k-h 1 
sequent cancellation of the assessees' registration was 
en a~'~ ~.am 
held by Their Lordships of the Privy Council to form Bombay nyeing &.. 
part of the record retrospectively in the light of the Mfg. co., Ltd. 
said subsequent event, and the order was deemed to 
. ·-· - ·. 
suffer from a mistake apparent from the record SO as Ga;enliragaflkar ]. 
to justify the exercise of the rectification powers under 
s. 35 of the Act. It is because Their Lordships thought 
thats. 35 would have been clearly applicable that they 
did not decide the question as to whe'ther s. 34 could 
also have beeninvoked. This decision lends consider-
able support to the view which we are disposed to 
take about the true meaning and scope of the expres-
sion ''-the inistake apparent from the record" 
occur~ 
ring in s. 35. 
· 
We must accordingly hold that the High Court. of 
Bombay was in error in coming .to the conch,1sion that 
the notice issued by the Income-tax Officer calling 
upon the respondent to pay the sum of Rs. 29,446-9-0 
was not warranted by law. · The result is the order 
passed by the High Court issuing a writ against the 
appellant is set aside and the appeal is allowed with 
costs throughout. 
Appeal allowed. 
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BOMBAY 
v. 
M/S. AMRITLAL BHOG ILAL & CO. 
(VENKATARAMA AIYAR, GAJENDRA<MDKAR and 
A. K. SARKAR JJ.) 
Income Tax-Registration and assess'ment ~) firm by Income 
Tax Officer-Appeal against 
orders . of assessment-Power . of 
Appellgie Assistant Commissioner in appeal_cCancellation of order 
of registration by Commissioner of Income Tax in revision pending 
such .appeat-Validity.c....Indian Income-tax Act, I922 (KI of I92:!~, • 
.ss •. 26A, JI .and 33B(I). 
• . · 
· . · 
; 
r958 
April a8. 
Conimi.~sioner 
of Ine<;ime-lax, 
Bo1nbay 
v. 
Af.fs. Amritlal 
Bhogilal ©- Co. 
714 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1959] 
The respondent firm was assessed to income-tax for the 
assessment years 1947-48, 1948-49 and 1949-50 under s. 23(3). 
The Income-tax Officer renewed the registration of the firm 
under s. 26A of the Income-tax Act and passed an order under 
s. 23(6) allocating the shares of the various partners. The respon-
dent preferred appeals against the orders of assessment to the 
Appellate Assistant Commissioner. On November 4, 1950, the 
Appellate Assistant Commissioner partly accepted the appeals in 
respect of the assessment years 1947-48 and 1948-49 but the 
appeal in respect of the assessment year 1949-50 was still 
pending. 
Meanwhile after issuing notice to the parties and 
hearing them the Commissioner, acting under s. 33B(1), passed 
an order on June •5, 1952, cancelling the registration granted 
under s. 26A on the ground that one of the partners of the firm 
was a minor, and directed the Income-tax Officer to make fresh 
assessments for the three years. The respondent preferred appeals 
to the Appellate Tribunal which were allowed. On the application 
of the appellant the Tribunal referred, under s. 66(1) of.the Act, 
three questions to the High Court of Bombay. In regard to the 
assessment years 1947-48 and 1948-49 the High Court helcHhat 
the orders of the Income-tax Officer granting registration had 
merged in the appellate orders of the Assistant Appellate Com-
missioner and the revisional power of the Commissioner under 
s. 33B(1) could not be exercised in respect of them. With regard 
to .the renewal of registration for the year 1949-50 the High 
Court held that the Commissioner could not exercise his revi-
sional pO\ver as the propriety of this order was open to considera-
tion by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in the respondent's 
appeal pending before him. 
The appellant obtained special 
leave and appealed: 
Held, that the Commissioner had the authority under 
s. 33B(1) to set aside the orders of registration made by the 
Income-tax Officer. 
An order of the Income-tax Officer granting 
registration was not appealable before the Appellate Assistant 
Commissioner. Such an order could be cancelled by the Com-
missioner in exercise of his revisional powers under s. 33B(1); 
but it could not be cancelled by the Appellate Assistant Com-
missioner even in the exercise of his appellate jurisdiction when 
dealing with an appeal by an assessee. 
The theory that the 
order of a tribupal merges in the order of the appellate authority 
did no

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.