9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (4) TMI 182X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... year relief u/s 80C tax rebate now withdrawn u/s 154 Rs. Rs. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1307/81 P.K. Ramaswamy Nadar 1976-77 1,906 627 1308/81 P.K. Ramaswamy Nadar 1977-78 1,856 511 1309/81 P.K. Ramaswamy Nadar 1978-79 1,856 642 1310/21 P.K. Ramaswamy Nadar 1979-80 2,000 843 1312/81 P.K. Inbarajan (Larger HUF) 1976-77 2,004 1,100 1313/81 P.K. Inbarajan -do- 1977-78 1,954 1,073 1314/81 P.K. Inbarajan -do- 1977-78 4,050 2,228 1315/81 P.K. Inbarajan -do- 1978-79 4,000 1,84 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ef, failure of the handouts and canvassers to warn the assessees and even the intervention of the ITO to enable the assessees to open a public provident fund account with the bank, it was sought to be suggested, constituted a sort of contributory negligence or an estoppel against the subsequent ITO to reopen the matter. Constitutionally of such discriminating treatment as between HUF and individuals was also questioned. Lastly, equity, fairness and good conscience, it was claimed, were against the proposed action. The ITO was not impressed by the arguments. He held that it was a clear mistake and, therefore, rectifiable under section 154. The first authority agreed with him and, hence, the second appeals. 3. The learned representative took us over the records and repeated the detailed arguments which he had unsuccessfully advanced before the authorities below. He pointed out that the assessees attached the receipts and claimed relief under section 80C. If the first assessments had held that the families were not eligible for relief, subsequent deposits by the same family and other families could not have been made and the present plight and expenses would have been avoided. None ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r relief under section 80C. He urged that the issue is not, in the least, debatable. No assessee has a vested right to retain the relief that was wrongly allowed to it. If somebody had misled them by wrong advice, the assessee might have a private remedy against such a person but the public right of the revenue cannot thereby be frustrated. He relied on the decision in CWT v. Kamala Ganapati Subramaniam [1981] 127 ITR 175 wherein the Madras High Court distinguished jurisdiction from merits and had pointed out that the assessee cannot question jurisdiction under section 154 by creating a fresh dispute and rely on it to question jurisdiction. 5. We have carefully considered the facts and the circumstances of the cases before us. Scheme of section 80C is to list out the relief available to each class of assessees, viz., individuals, HUFs and certain AOPs, BOIs. Deduction in respect of contribution to notified provident fund is available under section 80C(2)(a)(iv) where the assessee is an individual and under section 80C(2)(g)(i)(2) where the assessee is an AOP or BOI. The concession to individuals was introduced by the Finance Act, 1968, with effect from 1-4-1969. The requisite not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ef under section 80C to an individual but not to the HUF on the life of a member, though both are treated alike in respect of insurance on life. There is absolutely no basis for assuming that a benefit available to one class of assessees will be available to another. The grant of a relief not warranted by law by overlooking a clear statutory provision, would always justify action under section 154. Under the circumstances, we must hold that there is a clear demonstrable mistake in the original assessment in granting of the relief purportedly under section 80C. 6. There was considerable attempt to show that the mistake, if any, is not capable of rectification within the meaning of section 154. Authorities were sought to be cited by both sides. We do not think that we have to discuss this matter in any detail. The law is now well established. The mistake, in order that it can be rectified, should be a mistake 'apparent from the record'. Such a mistake may well be a mistake of law also. Overlooking a mandatory provision of law which leaves no option or discretion to the taxing authority, e.g., omission to charge tax, surcharge or interest, is a mistake apparent from the record. Thes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lief. We know of no authority which will rule out jurisdiction under section 154 merely because the ITO was privy to the mistake. In fact, rectifications under section 154, are precisely meant to correct the mistakes of the authorities themselves. If the assessees were lulled into a sense of false security into making fresh deposits, we can only sympathise with them but cannot, on that ground, direct cancellation of orders of rectification of mistakes merely to enable them to retain the benefits to which they were not rightly entitled. The learned representative for the assessees claimed that the length of the orders of authorities below, the number of arguments cited on behalf of the assessees and the time taken by him before us all clearly show that section 154 is not applicable if so much effort is required to sustain it. We are afraid that he is mistaken in this argument. What may come in the way of jurisdiction under section 154 is a lengthy discussion about the question whether there is a mistake at all. Here there is hardly any doubt or debate possible about the fact that the assessee was mistakenly allowed relief under section 80C. The debate, if any, is only in the attempt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
