1984 Supreme(Raj) 336
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
S.C.Agrawal, S.N.Bhargava, JJ.
Rajasthan Financial Corporation - Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Income - Respondent
D.B. Income-tax Reference No. 12 of 1972.
Decided On : 15-05-1984
Important Points
Subject
Income Tax - Rebate on super-tax and income-tax
Headnote
INCOME TAX - Rebate on super-tax and income-tax - Whether shares of assessee corporation were preference shares - Whether mistakes in original assessments in not reducing rebates were mistakes apparent from the record - Held, shares of assessee corporation were not preference shares - Mistakes in original assessments were not mistakes apparent from the record.
Fact of the Case:
The assessee, a State Financial Corporation established under the State Financial Corporations Act, declared dividends on its shares for the assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66. The Income-tax Officer initially assessed the assessee's income without reducing the rebates on super-tax and income-tax with reference to the dividends declared. Subsequently, the Income-tax Officer initiated proceedings under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) and rectified the assessment orders to reduce the rebates on the ground that the dividends were not paid on preference shares. The assessee appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, who held that the mistake in the original assessment orders was not apparent from the record and cancelled the rectification orders. The Department appealed to the Tribunal, which held that the shares of the assessee were not preference shares and that the mistake in the original assessment orders was apparent from the record.
Finding of the Court:
The Tribunal held that the shares of the assessee were not preference shares and that the mistake in the original assessment orders was apparent from the record.
Issues: 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the shares of the assessee corporation were not preference shares? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the mistakes in the original assessments in not reducing the rebates on super-tax for the assessment year 1964-65 and income-tax for the assessment year 1965-66, with reference to the dividends declared by the assessee, were mistakes apparent from the records within the meaning of section 154 of the Income-tax Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The expression "preference shares" in the Finance Act, 1964, and the Finance Act, 1965, must be construed with reference to the provisions contained in the Companies Act, 1956. 2. The shares of the assessee did not fall within the category of preference shares as they did not have any preferential rights over other shares. 3. The mistake in the original assessment orders was not a mistake apparent from the record as it involved the interpretation of the provisions of the Financial Corporations Act and the Companies Act, 1956, which was a debatable question.
Final Decision: Question No. 1 is answered in the affirmative, i.e., against the assessee and in favour of the Department and question No. 2 is answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Department.
"1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the shares of the assessee corporation were not preference shares ?
2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the mistakes in the original assessments in not reducing the rebates on super-tax for the assessment year 1964-65 and income-tax for the assessment year 1965-66, with reference to the dividends declared by the assessee, were mistakes apparent from the records within the meaning of section 154 of the Income-tax Act ?