9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Assessment of losses on the sale or death of cattle for the assessment years 1976-77, 1977-78, and 1978-79 under section 36(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Analysis: The petitioners, engaged in dairy farming, claimed losses on the sale or death of cattle based on Schedule E of their annual accounts, which had been allowed in previous years as well. The Income-tax Officer issued notices in 1981 and 1982, proposing rectification of the assessments for the mentioned years, citing mistakes in the calculation of losses on cattle sales. The Officer contended that the valuation of cattle should be based on the actual cost of each animal, which the petitioners argued was not feasible due to the large number of cattle they maintained. The Officer proposed a different valuation method, invoking section 36(1)(vi) of the Act, which allows deductions for animals used in business and subsequently becoming useless. The petitioners valued such cattle, termed as salvage, at 50% of the average cost of acquisition, a method previously accepted by tax authorities. The Court noted that the Officer's proposed rectification was not based on an obvious or patent mistake but rather a debatable point requiring investigation and debate. Therefore, the Court held that the notices were not valid under section 154 of the Act and quashed them, restraining further action by the respondents. This judgment delves into the interpretation of section 36(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act regarding the deduction allowed for animals used in business becoming useless. It highlights the dispute between the Income-tax Officer and the petitioners regarding the method of valuation of cattle for tax purposes. The Court emphasizes the need for a mistake to be apparent on the record to warrant rectification under section 154, stating that a debatable point of law does not qualify as a mistake apparent from the record. The Court scrutinizes the valuation method employed by the petitioners for cattle under salvage, emphasizing the reasonableness of valuing such cattle at less than the average cost of acquisition due to their temporary non-productivity. The judgment ultimately concludes that the Officer's proposed rectification was not based on an obvious mistake, leading to the quashing of the notices and a restraint on further action by the tax authorities.
|
