Deb, J. - (1.) Two questions are involved in this reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, and they are as follows : "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the order of the Commissioner passed under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the 7th September, 1967, was barred by limitation ? Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the said order of the Commissioner was also wrong and illegal and could not be upheld ?"
(2.) The assessee is a company. The reference relates to the assessment year 1947-48. At the time of completing the original assessment no double I.T. relief was allowed on account of income which had suffered tax both in India and in other countries. Subsequently, by an order dated January 31, 1950, double I.T. relief was given for income doubly assessed both in Ceylon and in India. On August 6, 1951, double I.T. relief was given in the U.K. and in India.
(3.) The assessee's claim for abatement under the Agreement for avoidance of Double Taxation between India and Pakistan was not finalised. The assessee made such a claim in 1950. By an order dated September 15, 1964, the ITO rejected the said claim on the ground that it was barred by limitation. Thereafter, the ITO having found that the said claim was not time-barred rectified his mistake under Section 154 of the I.T. Act, 1961, and granted such relief by his order dated September 9, 1965 and allowed a refund of Rs. 8,08,298.13 being the excess amount of tax paid by the assessee.;