M/S. MAHARANA MILLS (PRIVATE) LTD. vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, PORBANDAR

CIVIL APPEAL No. 39/1959Supreme Court1959 INSC 3214 April 1959Bench: 3 JudgesAuthor: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA, J.L. KAPUR, M. HIDAYATULLAH16 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s. Maharana Mills (Private) Ltd., was assessed to income-tax for the assessment year 1953-54. The initial assessment order dated June 30, 1955, allowed depreciation of Rs. 3,48,105. On August 8, 1955, the assessee applied for rectification under Section 35 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, citing calculation errors in the depreciation amount. The Income-tax Officer, by order dated February 27, 1956, corrected the written-down value of properties and determined the allowable depreciation at Rs. 1,94,074. The assessee challenged this order, arguing lack of written notice for rectification, that Section 35 was inappropriate for written-down value corrections (Section 34 being the correct provision), and that the officer exceeded jurisdiction by acting suo motu. The Income-tax Officer found that notice was given, though not in writing, and the matter was discussed with the assessee's representative.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Tribunal held that the object of the notice provision under Section 35 is to ensure that no order detrimental to the assessee is passed without an opportunity to be heard. If the assessee was aware of the proceedings and the matter was discussed, an adverse order is not invalid merely for lack of a written notice. Regarding the scope of 'mistake apparent from the record' in Section 35(1), the Tribunal clarified that it encompasses all proceedings on which the assessment order is based, not just the assessment order itself. The Income-tax Officer is entitled to examine the entire evidence and applicable law to identify errors. If the written-down value of a previous year is doubted, the officer can re-examine previous calculations and make fresh computations according to law. A mistake contemplated is not one requiring argument to discover, but one evident upon examination of the record. If such a mistake is found, it can be rectified, provided that if it results in an enhanced assessment or reduced refund, proper notice and an opportunity to be heard must be given to the assessee. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decisions in M.K. Venkatachalam v. Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co., Ltd., Commissioner of Income-tax v. Khemchand Ramdas, and Sidhramappa Andannappa Manvi v. Commissioner of Income-tax. The appeal was dismissed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income-tax Officer's order rectifying the written-down value and depreciation amount under Section 35 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, was invalid due to the absence of a written notice to the assessee. 2. Whether Section 35 of the Act is the appropriate provision for rectifying mistakes in the calculation of written-down values, or if Section 34, which pertains to excessive depreciation, should have been invoked. 3. Whether the Income-tax Officer exceeded his jurisdiction under Section 35 by acting suo motu to recalculate depreciation based on the written-down value, rather than solely rectifying mistakes pointed out by the assessee. Assessee's Contentions: - The assessee argued that a written notice of the intended rectification of the written-down value was not provided, rendering the order invalid. - It was contended that Section 35 was not intended for correcting written-down values, and Section 34 was the appropriate provision for excessive depreciation. - The assessee claimed the Income-tax Officer exceeded his jurisdiction under Section 35 by recalculating depreciation suo motu, and should have only corrected errors brought to his notice. Revenue's Contentions: - The revenue contended that notice was given, though not in writing, and the matter was discussed with the assessee's representative, satisfying the requirement of an opportunity to be heard. - The revenue implicitly argued that Section 35 was applicable for rectifying mistakes apparent from the record, including those related to written-down values, and that the officer acted within his powers.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10(2)(vi),Section 35(1),Section 34,Section 63

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

(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 a

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 35(1)

All 69 judgments and leading authorities on Section 35(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →