1979 (1) TMI 29 - HC - Income Tax

High Court, Income Tax Act, Minor Child, Partnership Deed, Rectification Proceedings, Set Off, Total Income

Issues Involved:
1. Scope of the power of rectification under Section 35 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922.
2. Applicability of Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. Interpretation of Clause 6 of the partnership deeds.
4. Validity of the rectification orders passed by the Income Tax Officer (ITO).
5. Binding nature of the Central Board of Revenue (CBR) Circular No. 20 of 1944.
6. Applicability of Section 64 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, regarding the set-off of minor's share of loss.
7. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the ITO could rectify the assessment order on the grounds of an error of law apparent on the face of the record.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Scope of the Power of Rectification under Section 35 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922:
The petitioner challenged the rectification orders passed by the ITO under Section 35, which allows the rectification of any mistake apparent from the record. The court emphasized that the power of rectification is limited to correcting obvious and patent mistakes, not those requiring extensive reasoning or debate.

2. Applicability of Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The court referred to the Supreme Court's interpretation in T. S. Balaram v. Volkart Brothers, which held that a mistake apparent from the record must be an obvious and patent mistake. The court found that the rectification orders did not meet this criterion, as they involved debatable points of law.

3. Interpretation of Clause 6 of the Partnership Deeds:
Clause 6 of the partnership deeds of Rasik Solvent Extraction Company and Krishna Oil Mills provided that minors admitted to the benefits of the partnership would not be personally liable for any obligations of the firm, but their respective shares would be liable. The court noted that the interpretation of this clause was open to debate, particularly regarding whether the capital contributions of the minors could be used to meet the firm's losses.

4. Validity of the Rectification Orders Passed by the ITO:
The court found that the rectification orders were not justified, as they involved debatable points of law and interpretation of partnership deed clauses. The court held that there was no error apparent from the record, and thus, the ITO had no jurisdiction to pass the rectification orders.

5. Binding Nature of the Central Board of Revenue (CBR) Circular No. 20 of 1944:
The court considered the CBR Circular No. 20 of 1944, which allowed the set-off of losses incurred by a wife or minor child against the individual's income. The court noted that this circular was binding on all officers and persons employed in the execution of the Income Tax Act, as held by the Supreme Court in Navnit Lal C. Javeri v. K. K. Sen. The court found that the circular was not considered in the original assessment, and its applicability was a matter of debate.

6. Applicability of Section 64 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Regarding the Set-off of Minor's Share of Loss:
The court examined whether the minor's share of loss could be set off against the assessee's income under Section 64. The court noted that this issue was also open to debate, as different High Courts had taken varying views on the matter.

7. Whether the Tribunal was Correct in Holding that the ITO Could Rectify the Assessment Order on the Grounds of an Error of Law Apparent on the Face of the Record:
The court concluded that the Tribunal erred in holding that the ITO could rectify the assessment order on the grounds of an error of law apparent on the face of the record. The court held that the issues involved were debatable and not obvious or patent mistakes, and thus, the rectification orders were beyond the scope of the ITO's powers under Section 154 and Section 35.

Conclusion:
The court quashed the rectification orders and the notice issued by the ITO, holding that they were beyond the scope of the powers of rectification under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court also quashed the order of the Commissioner, who had confirmed the ITO's rectification order. The court directed the income-tax authorities not to act upon the notice and awarded costs to the petitioner.

← Previous Next →