LexM/S. MAHARANA MILLS (PRIVATE) LTD. versus THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, PORBANDAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS "54:7 Panchayat just in the same way as he had executed the z959 school contract as the Secretary of the Vidyalaya in b Bhagwan Singh question. That eing so, s. 7(d) cannot be invoked v. against him. In view of this conclusion it is unneces- Rameshwar sary to decide whether the works in question had Prasad Sastri been undertaken by the Government of Bihar or by - the Central Government. . Gajendragadkar ]. The result is that the appeal must be allowed, the order passed by the High Court set aside arid that of the tribunal restored ; respondent 1 shall pay the. costs of the appellant throughout; and the Election Commission shall bear their own. We would like to add that, after this appeal was argued before us on April 2, 1959, we had announced our decis!on · that the appeal would be allowed and that the judgment would be delivered later on in due eourse. It is in pursuance of that order that the pre- sent judgment has been delivered. Appeal allowed. M/S. MAHARANA MILLS (PRIVATE) LTD. v. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, PORBANDAR (B. P. SINHA, J. L. KAPUR and M. HrnAYATULLAH, JJ.) Income Tax-Depreciation-Written Down V alue-C amputa- tion for prior years-Whether binding for succeeding years-Fresh calculation for written down value by Income-tax Officer-Notice to assessee-When essential-Indian Income-tax Act, r922 (XI of r922), ss. ro(z)(vi), 35(r), 63, Sub-section (r) of s. 35 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, provided: " .................. the Income-tax officer may ...... on his own motion rectify any mistake apparent from the record ...... and shall ...... rectify any such mistake which has been brought to his notice by an assessee: Provided that no such rectificatioa shall be made, having the effect of enhancing or reducing a I959 April I4. 548 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959] Supp. I959 refund unless ...... the Income-tax Officer. ..... has the assessee of his intention so to do and has M /s. _Maharana reasonable opportunity of being heard.". given notice to allowed him a Mills (Private) Ltd. The appellant, a private limited company, was assessed to 1 v. income-tax for the assessment year 1953-54 under the provisions The nconi:·tax of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and as per the assessment Officer, Porvandar d d t d J h f d · · d or er a e une 30, 1955. t e amount o eprec1at10n allowe under s. 10(2)(vi) of the Act was Rs. 3-48,105~ On August 8, 1955, the appellant made an application before the Income-tax Officer for rectification of the order under s. 35 of the Act, point- ing out certain mistakes in calculation in regard to the deprecia- tion amount. By his order of February 27, 1956, the Income- tax Officer corrected the written down value of the different pro- perties of the appellant and determined the total allowable depreciation to be Rs. l,94,07+ The appellant challenged the order dated February 27, 1956, on the grounds, inter alia, (1) that he was not given a written notice of the intended rectifica- tion of the written down value, (2) that the provisious under which the Income-tax Officer acted, i.e., s. 35 of the Act, was not meant for the purpose of making corrections in written down values, the correct provision being s. 34 which specifically refers to excessive depreciation, and (3) that, in any case, he had exceeded his jurisdiction under s. 35 of the Act in calculating the depreciation on the written down value of the buildings and machinery of the appellant acting suo motu, and that he could correct only those mistakes which had been pointed out by it. It was found that notice was given to the appellant of the in- tended determination of the written down value, though it was • not a written notice, and that the matter was discussed with its representative. ' Held: (1) that the object of the provision as to notice under s. 35 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, is that no order should be passed to the detriment of an assessee without affording him an opportunity for being heard and that if, as a matter of fact, the assessee knew of the proceedings and the matter had been discussed with him, an adverse order would not be invalid merely because no written no\ice was given. (2) that the word "record " used in the phrase " mistake apparent from the record" ins. 35(1) of the Act refers not only to the order of assessment but comprises all proceedings on \Vhich the assessment order i
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.