Chandrashekhar, J. - (1.) IN this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the orders of the income-tax authorities and has also prayed for issue of a direction to the INcome-tax Officer to refund certain amount of tax.
(2.) THE case of the petitioner is, briefly, as follows : THE petitioner is a non-resident company which is holding shares in three companies registered in India. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1955-56 the petitioner received dividends from these three companies. One of these companies, namely, M/s. O.C.M. India (Private) Ltd., had declared an interim dividend of Rs. 2,30,000 and a final dividend of Rs. 1,15,000. Out of the gross interim dividend of Rs. 2,30,000 M/s. O.C.M. India (Private) Ltd. had deducted at the source Rs. 57,500 towards income-tax and Rs. 11,500 towards super-tax. While sending its return of income for the assessment year 1965-66 the petitioner omitted to include the interim dividend of Rs. 30,000 and according to the petitioner, this was by inadvertence. THE Income-tax Officer accepted the return of the petitioner and made the assessment. Hence, neither the gross dividend of Rs. 2,30,000 nor the deductions. of Rs. 57,500 towards income-tax and Rs. 11,500 towards super-tax were taken into consideration by the Income-tax Officer. In view of the provisions of Clause 2(b)(ii) of Part II of the First Schedule to the Finance Act, 1965, the income of the petitioner was not liable to super-tax. Hence, the sum of Rs. 11,500 deducted at the source towards super-tax before payment of the interim dividend, had to be refunded to the petitioner. Subsequent to the Income-tax Officer making the assessment for the year 1965-66 the petitioner made an application to him requesting him to reopen the assessment of that year as the interim dividend of Rs. 2,30,000 had escaped assessment to income, to reassess its income and to refund to it (the petitioner) the sum of Rs. 11,500 deducted at the source towards supertax. The Income-tax Officer declined to reopen the assessment. The petitioner made another application to the Income-tax Officer claiming refund of the sum of Rs. 11,500 which had been deducted at the source towards super-tax before paying the interim dividend to it. But the Income-tax Officer rejected the claim for refund on the ground that the assessment had been concluded and the refund could not be granted without reopening the assessment. The petitioner's successive appeals to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, against the aforesaid order of the Income-tax Officer, were unsuccessful.
(3.) THE petitioner also preferred a revision petition to the Commissioner of Income-tax (hereinafter referred to as "the Commissioner") under Section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, praying that the order of assessment might be revised so that the interim dividend of Rs. 2,30,000 received by it from M/s. O.C.M. India (Private) Ltd. and inadvertently not included in the original return, might be included in its income and the super-tax deducted at the source might be refunded to it (the petitioner). THE Commissioner dismissed the revision petition observing as follows : "THE petitioner filed return showing income of Rs. 2,62,300 on January 18, 1966, and it was accepted by the Income-tax Officer on February 10, 1967. THEre is no mistake in the Income-tax Officer's order, which requires interference. THE petition is misconceived and is accordingly rejected." In this petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the orders of the Income-tax Officer, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. But it has not prayed for quashing the order of the Commissioner dismissing the revision petition, though it has contended in the body of the petition that the said order was unsustainable. Where the necessary averments of facts and contentions are contained in a writ petition and necessary parties are also impleaded, it is open to the court to grant the appropriate relief even though the petitioner had not specifically asked for it.;