Against this order the respondent companypany went in revision under s. 33A 2 to the Commissioner of Income tax but the revision was dismissed.
226 of the Constitution on the ground that s. 35 of the Act did number apply and that on the merits additional tax companyld number be imposed.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated October 31, 1955, of the Travancore Cochin High Court, Ernakulam, in Original Petition No.
After giving numberice under s. 35 of the Act, the Income tax Officer by an order dated January 25, 1954, rectified this error and imposed an additional tax at the rate of one anna in the rupee.
1,47,083 after deducting Rs.
On February 2, 1953, the net assessable income of the respondent was determined at Rs.
4,72,415 which attracted the application of s. 2 of the Finance Act, 1952, read with Part B, proviso ii of First Schedule and thus it became liable to the payment of additional income tax and this fact was overlooked by the Income tax Officer.
311 of 1959.
He later discovered that this was also erroneous and the rate should have been 5 annas in a rupee.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
75 of 1955.
1,79,081 under s. 15C. The respondent however declared a dividend of Rs.
The facts which have given rise to the appeal are these The respondent is a limited companypany which owns a spinning mills at Alwaye.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KAPUR, J. This is an appeal pursuant to a certificate of the High Court of Kerala against the judgment and order of that companyrt and the question for decision is the applicability of s. 35 of the Indian Income tax Act hereinafter termed the Act .
Sardar Bahadur, for the respondent.
N. Kripal and D. Gupta, for the appellant.
5,000 and therefore became liable to penal interest under s. 18A 8 of the Act.
December 13.
By an order dated August 12, 1954, he rectified the error.
Under s. 18A, advance income tax had to be paid and the respondent companypany had deposited only Rs.
By the same order this omission to impose penal interest was companyrected and this error was thus rectified.
Thereupon the respondent companypany filed a petition in the High Court of Kerala under Art.
