9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Assessment of taxable income, claim of refund belonging to Hindu undivided family, rectification under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Summary: For the assessment year 1974-75, the petitioner's taxable income was assessed by the first respondent, including a refund of annuity deposit in the petitioner's total assessable income. The petitioner claimed the refund belonged to his Hindu undivided family. Following a judgment by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, the refund was included. However, a subsequent judgment by the High Court held that the refund was not assessable as the petitioner's income. The petitioner filed for rectification under section 154 of the Act, which was not responded to by the first respondent. The petitioner then filed a writ petition seeking to quash the order and direct the respondents to deal with the rectification application on merits. In the writ petition, the petitioner's counsel argued that an assessment contrary to a judgment subsequently rendered by the court constitutes an error on the face of the record, warranting rectification under section 154. The respondents' counsel contended that such an assessment does not constitute an error on the face of the record, citing relevant case law. The court considered whether the assessment made contrary to a judgment subsequently rendered would constitute an error on the face of the record and if an application under section 154 for rectification is maintainable. Referring to section 154 of the Act, the court noted a similar case where rectification was allowed based on a court judgment. The court held that the assessment made contrary to the judgment constituted an error on the face of the record, making the application for rectification maintainable. Based on the precedent set by previous court decisions, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner, allowing the writ petition, quashing the challenged order, and directing the respondents to deal with the rectification application on its merits and according to the law. No costs were awarded in the judgment.
|
