1973 (8) TMI 13 - HC - Income Tax

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case it was competent for the Income-tax Officer to pass orders under section 154 on the ground that there was a mistake apparent from the record ? - We, answer the question that it was not competent for the Income-tax Officer in the facts and circumstances of the case to pass orders under section 154 on the ground that there was a mistake apparent from the record

Summary

Issues:
Competency of Income-tax Officer to pass orders under section 154 based on a mistake apparent from the record.

Analysis:
The case involved a reference from the Tribunal regarding the competency of the Income-tax Officer to pass orders under section 154 based on a mistake apparent from the record. The Income-tax Officer had added half of the profit of the relevant accounting year to the capital employed for two assessment years. Subsequently, the Officer believed this addition was incorrect as the profits would automatically be reflected in the assets of the business. Therefore, the Officer recomputed the capital under section 154, excluding the profits added earlier. The assessee challenged this order, arguing that it was not competent for the Officer to do so as the matter was debatable. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal had differing opinions on this issue.

The Tribunal, following a decision of the Bombay High Court, held that the matter was debatable and allowed the appeal. The question revolved around the interpretation of rule 19 of the Income-tax Rules, specifically clause (5), which dealt with the computation of the average amount of capital employed. The clause provided a legal fiction regarding the accrual of profits and their reflection in the capital employed. The Court noted that the provision allowed for the rebuttal of this fiction based on the facts and circumstances of a case.

Referring to a Supreme Court decision, the Court emphasized that a mistake apparent from the record must be obvious and patent, not a debatable point of law. The Court concluded that the interpretation of clause (5) of rule 19 was not free from doubt and involved a long process of reasoning. Therefore, it was not an error apparent on the record for the Income-tax Officer to have added the profits to the capital and later exclude them based on his interpretation. The Court held that the Tribunal was justified in allowing the appeals and answered the question in favor of the assessee, stating that it was not competent for the Income-tax Officer to pass orders under section 154 in this case based on a mistake apparent from the record. The Commissioner of Income-tax was directed to pay the costs to the assessee.