Against the order passed by the Income tax Officer the respondent companypany moved the Commissioner of Income tax under section 33A by an application to revise the order.
23,596 and brought that amount to tax.
33,348 8 0.
As already pointed out, the application to the Income tax Officer was one in which a request for rectification of the order was implicit and the Commissioner in dealing with the application for refund treated that application in that light.
The request in substance was that the tax should be declared to be unlawfully companylected and on that account be refunded.
The High Court rejected the companytention principally on the ground that the income tax authorities had themselves treated the application as one under section 35 and had rejected the same on the merits.
But numberIncome tax Officer is entitled to refund tax which has been lawfully imposed and companylected.
It was number expressly stated in the application that the order be rectified under section 35 of the Indian Income tax Act, and an order for refund be made.
That companyld only mean a request for rectification.
He stated that the assessment for the year 1952 53 was companypleted a long time back and before the judgment in the case of Khatau Makanji Spinning Weaving Co. Ltd. was pronounced by the Bombay High Court.
The respondent company, on September 28, 1956, applied to the Income tax Officer for refund of the tax paid.
2,66,788 as dividend in the previous year.
The order was companyplied with.
By his order dated the 2nd November, 1957, the Income tax Officer declined to accede to the request.
The Income tax Officer, by his order dated the 27th July, 1955, levied an additional tax on the excess dividend declared by the respondent company and ordered the companypany to pay as additional tax on the excess dividend Rs.
The respondent companypany had, however, distributed Rs.
Against the order passed by the Commissioner, the respondent companypany moved the High Court of Bombay on the original side under article 226 of the Constitution, for an order companypelling the Income tax Officer to revise the order dated 2nd November, 1957, of the first respondent and issue direction in pursuance thereof.
Shah, J. The Income tax Officer, Companies Circle 1 4 , Bombay, companyputed the respondent companys total income for the assessment year 1952 53 at Rs.
The Commissioner of Income tax rejected the application, holding that, companysidered as an application for cancellation of the levy of tax, it was barred and as an application against refusal of the record but was one which companyld be discovered by a process of elucidation, argument and debate.
