1971 (5) TMI 27 - HC - Income Tax

Whether Tribunal was right in holding that the ITO who had made the original assessment had not committed any glaring and obvious mistake of law while granting relief under section 49D (3) of the Indian Income-tax Act 1922 and that accordingly the provisions of section 154 of the Income-tax Act 1961 were not applicable to the case - If the issue is capable of two views then it is not a mistake that could be rectified. In the present case there was scope for argument. Therefore it cannot be rectified under section 154.- further rectification order is an appealable one - when issue is not raised before the Tribunal High Court cannot consider the same issue decided in favour of assessee

Issues Involved
1. Whether the Income-tax Officer committed a glaring and obvious mistake of law in granting relief under section 49D(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and whether section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was applicable.
2. Whether the Income-tax Officer was justified in deducting the amount of abatement allowable under the Agreement for Avoidance of Double Taxation (A.A.D.T.) with Pakistan from the Indian income-tax for determining the Indian rate of tax under section 49D(3).

Detailed Analysis

Issue 1: Applicability of Section 154
The Tribunal held that the provisions of section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which correspond to section 35 of the old Act, do not confer any power on the Income-tax Officer to rectify a mistake that is not apparent from the records but "may be discovered by a complicated process of investigation, argument or proof." This principle was supported by the Supreme Court's decision in M. K. Venkatachalam, Income-tax Officer v. Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Co. Ltd., which stated that only a glaring and obvious mistake of law could be rectified under section 35.

The Tribunal found that the mistakes attempted to be rectified were not apparent from the records and thus could not be corrected under section 154. The High Court agreed with this view, noting that the expression "mistake apparent from the record" must be a clear or self-evident mistake. If discovering the mistake calls for elaborate investigations either as to the legal position or the facts involved, it would not be a mistake apparent from the record. The High Court referred to the Supreme Court's judgments in Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Thirumale and K. M. Shanmugam v. S. R. V. S. (P.) Ltd., which supported this interpretation.

The High Court concluded that there was considerable scope for argument on the scope and effect of clauses (a) and (b) of section 49A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and thus, what the Income-tax Officer sought to rectify was not a clear or obvious mistake of law or a mistake apparent from the record. Therefore, the High Court answered question No. 1 in the affirmative and in favor of the assessee.

Issue 2: Deduction of Abatement under A.A.D.T.
The Tribunal accepted the respondent-company's argument that in computing the Indian rate of tax, abatement allowable under the A.A.D.T. should not be deducted from the tax payable in India. The Tribunal observed that "relief" referred to in clause (a) of section 49A is granted when tax has been paid in both countries, while the benefit conferred by clause (b) arises before tax has been imposed and paid. The Tribunal, therefore, held that abatement of tax under the A.A.D.T. with Pakistan does not amount to "relief due under the other provisions of the Act" within the meaning of Explanation (ii) to section 49D(3).

The High Court noted that the Agreement for the Avoidance of Double Taxation in India and Pakistan dated December 10, 1947, used the term "abatement" in various articles. The provisions of this agreement were considered by the court in Shell Co. of India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, where it was held that there is a material difference between the provisions of sections 49A and 49AA of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. Section 49A provides for relief in certain cases where income-tax has already been paid in both India and a foreign country, while section 49AA provides for the avoidance of double taxation.

The High Court found that this judgment supported the assessee's contention that there was considerable scope for argument on the scope and effect of clauses (a) and (b) of section 49A. Therefore, what the Income-tax Officer sought to rectify was not a clear or obvious mistake of law or a mistake apparent from the record.

Since the first question was answered in favor of the assessee, there was no occasion for the High Court to answer question No. 2.

Competence of the Reference
The department argued that the reference itself was incompetent because the order for rectification was made under section 35 of the old Act, and no appeal lay either to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner or the Tribunal. The High Court rejected this argument on several grounds:
1. The Income-tax Officer made his order under section 154 of the Act of 1961, making it an appealable order.
2. The point regarding the maintainability of the appeal was never raised before the Tribunal.
3. The department could not achieve indirectly what it could not achieve directly.
4. The argument was not entertained by the court in the present reference.

The High Court concluded that the reference was competent and overruled the department's third contention.

Conclusion
The High Court answered the first question in the affirmative and in favor of the assessee, and as a result, did not address the second question. The department was ordered to pay the costs of the reference to the assessee.

← Previous Next →