9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (12) TMI 1039 - HC - Income TaxRectification u/s 154 - case of the Petitioner is that in the course of re-assessment proceedings, the Assessment Officer have wrongly added ICDS while computing taxable income u/s 115JB - also stated that in terms of provisions of law, ICDS will be added in the normal course in determining the income, but in the present case on hand, the assessee is liable to pay the tax in terms of provisions u/s115JB of the Act and hence the Petitioner filed a Rectification Petition u/s. 154 HELD THAT - While passing the reassessment order, the Respondents have added ICDS while computing income in terms of Section 115JB of the Act. There is no provision in law to add ICDS and therefore when there was no provision, the question of adding the said ICDS while calculating deemed income under Section 115JB would not arise. In such view of the matter, the aforesaid error has to be rectified. As relying on MK VENKATACHALAM, INCOME-TAX OFFICER, AND ANOTHER 1958 (4) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT it is clear that in the event of any mistakes on the record both in law and on facts, it can be rectified. Following the same, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order.
Issues involved:
The judgment involves challenging the rejection of a rectification petition under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, regarding the addition of ICDS while computing taxable income under Section 115JB of the Act. Details of the Judgment: Issue 1: Rejection of Rectification Petition The Petitioner filed a Writ Petition challenging the rejection of their application under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Respondent. The Petitioner contended that the Assessment Officer wrongly added ICDS while computing taxable income under Section 115JB of the Act. The Petitioner argued that there was an error apparent on the face of the record in the reassessment order, which necessitated rectification. Issue 2: Legal Arguments The Petitioner's counsel argued that the authority erred in adding ICDS while determining the deemed income, contrary to the provisions of the law. Reference was made to a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to support the contention that mistakes apparent from the record can be rectified under the relevant section of the Act. Issue 3: Respondent's Submission The Senior Counsel for the Respondent acknowledged an error in the order but stated that it had not been considered. The Respondent agreed to comply with any order passed by the Court in this regard. Judgment After hearing the submissions from both sides and examining the records, the Court found that there was no provision in the law to add ICDS while calculating income under Section 115JB. Citing a Supreme Court judgment, the Court emphasized that mistakes of law and fact apparent from the record can be rectified. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order, directing the matter to be remitted back to the authority for rectification. The Writ Petition was allowed with no costs, and connected Miscellaneous Petitions were closed.
|
