9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer to rectify the mistake under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding the levy of penal interest on a registered firm. 2. Whether the mistake of treating the registered firm as an unregistered firm for the purpose of penal interest was apparent on the face of the record. Analysis: The judgment addressed the issue of whether the Income-tax Officer had the jurisdiction to rectify a mistake under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding the levy of penal interest on a registered firm. The case involved an assessee, a registered firm, whose return of income for the assessment year was filed late, resulting in the levy of penal interest. The Income-tax Officer later realized that penal interest was chargeable by treating the assessee-firm as an unregistered firm due to a specific provision in the Income-tax Act. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the levy of interest treating the assessee as a registered firm was a mistake apparent on the face of the record and could be rectified under section 154. However, the Department contended that the levy of interest was not appealable and should not have been rectified. The Tribunal upheld the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's decision, stating that the issue of chargeability of penal interest was controversial and not a glaring mistake that could be rectified under section 154. The judgment highlighted the legal standard for a mistake to be rectified under section 154, citing the Supreme Court's decision in T. S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Brothers. It emphasized that a mistake apparent from the record must be obvious and patent, not a debatable point of law. In this case, there was no definitive decision from the court or the Supreme Court on the specific issue of levy of interest under the relevant provision when the Income-tax Officer made the decision to rectify the mistake. Different High Courts had conflicting views on the matter, making it a debatable point of law rather than a glaring mistake. As a result, the Tribunal confirmed the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's decision, stating that the mistake was not apparent on the face of the record, and the Income-tax Officer did not have jurisdiction under section 154 to rectify it. In conclusion, the judgment confirmed the Tribunal's decision, answering the questions raised in the negative and in favor of the assessee. The case highlighted the importance of a mistake being obvious and not subject to debate for it to be rectified under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
|
