9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
The judgment involves the interpretation of the provisions of section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding rectification of orders by the Appellate Tribunal based on subsequent decisions and the concept of "mistake apparent from the record." Interpretation of Section 254(2): The Appellate Tribunal invoked section 254(2) to rectify its earlier order due to a subsequent decision of the High Court, which clarified the assessment of income from an association of persons. The Tribunal's action was based on the mistake apparent from the record, as the assessees were members of an association of persons, and their share of income needed to be computed as per section 86(v) of the Act. The Tribunal's rectification was deemed necessary to align the assessment with the court's previous decisions and the law applicable to the assessees and the association of persons. Scope of Rectification Powers: The assessees argued against the rectification, claiming that it required elaborate arguments and investigation of facts, which was not the case here. They contended that the Tribunal could not go beyond its own record pertaining to each assessee. However, the court held that the law applicable to the assessees and the association of persons, as decided in previous references, did not involve complicated reasoning. The Tribunal was not limited to the actual record before it and could consider interdependent proceedings related to both the assessees individually and the association of persons. Precedents and Legal Interpretations: The court referred to legal precedents to explain the concept of "mistake apparent from the record." In Maharana Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. v. ITO, it was established that the term "record" includes all proceedings on which the assessment order is based, allowing the consideration of evidence and applicable law during rectification. The court also cited Kil Kotagiri Tea and Coffee Estates Co. Ltd. v. ITAT, emphasizing that subsequent judicial pronouncements can be the basis for rectification when the earlier order was based on a mistaken assumption. Additionally, CIT v. Shakuntala Rajeshwar highlighted that rectification under section 254(2) can be invoked when the earlier order was founded on a mistaken assumption. Conclusion: Based on the interpretation of the law and precedents cited, the court answered the question referred under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in the affirmative and against the assessees. The rectification by the Appellate Tribunal was deemed justified to ensure the proper assessment of income in accordance with the law and previous court decisions. Separate Judgment: No separate judgment was delivered by the judges in this case.
|
