9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Rectification of mistake under section 35 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. Analysis: The judgment by M. S. Menon, J., revolves around the rectification of a mistake under section 35 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash an order by the First Additional Income-tax Officer, Kozhikode, imposing penal interest for failure to file an estimate of total income and pay advance tax. The respondent justified the imposition of penal interest as a rectification of a mistake apparent from the record of assessment. The key contention was whether the imposition of penal interest constituted a rectifiable mistake under section 35. The respondent argued that the failure to consider the petitioner's liability for penal interest during the assessment was an oversight and a mistake apparent on the face of the records. The respondent contended that the provisions of section 18A were mandatory, and the omission to adhere to them constituted an accidental mistake that could be rectified under section 35. The judgment emphasized that a mistake apparent is one that is manifest, plain, or obvious, and clerical or arithmetical errors fall within this category. Referring to legal precedents, the judgment highlighted that the power of rectification under section 35 is limited to correcting mistakes that are patent on the record and not open to debate or argument. It clarified that the provision does not allow for a general revision or review of orders. The failure to comply with the mandatory provisions of section 18A, specifically sub-sections (3) and (8), was deemed an obvious error apparent from the assessment record, justifying the rectification through the imposition of penal interest. Ultimately, the judgment concluded that the imposition of penal interest was a valid rectification of a mistake apparent from the assessment record. As such, the petition was dismissed, affirming the legality of the order by the Income-tax Officer.
|
