9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (3) TMI 570X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Tribunal was right in law in holding that since the assessee has not claimed that the rate of tax applicable to it as per provisions of Part II of Schedule I of the Wealth Tax Act at the assessment stage or at the appellate stage, there is no mistake of apparent from the record which needs to be rectified? 2. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that non-application of the correct provisions of the Act, does not amount to mistake apparent from record? 2. The assessee herein filed the return of income for the assessment year 1989-90 under the Wealth Tax Act declaring a net wealth of Rs.18,15,700/-. The assessment was subsequently reopened under Section 16(2) of the Wealth Tax Act and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... preciation is excluded there would be a loss for the assessment year 1990-91. So too for the assessment year 1989-90. As regards the assessment year 1988-89, if the depreciation is excluded there would be no loss for the said assessment year. Thus, the proviso in Part II in Schedule I, would apply to the assessment years 1989-90 and 1990-91 only and would not be applicable to the assessment year 1988-89. As against the order of the Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) allowing the assessee's appeal, the Revenue went on appeal before the Tribunal which pointed out that the assessee had not made any claim before the authorities below that it was a loss making company and had not declared any dividend for the relevant assessment years. The fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... time of making assessment. When these facts did not form part of the record, admittedly, subsequent to the assessment it was not open to the asseessee to seek for rectification of the mistake, if any, under Section 35 of the Act. 6. We agree with the submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue. It is seen from the orders placed before this court that the assessment in this case was made on 12.3.1992 under Section 16(3) of the Act. A perusal of the order of the Wealth Tax assessment shows that it was more in the nature of additions made to the net wealth declared. Admittedly as against this order, the assessee had gone on appeal. The narration of statement of facts before this court as well as before the autho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xtiles Ltd.,) which considered Section 35 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 which corresponds to Section 154 of the Income Tax Act , 1961. Pointing out the differences between Section 35 of the Indian Income Tax Act and Order 41 Rule 1 of CPC that the expression "apparent from the record" as available under Section 35 is quite different from "apparent on the face of the record" occurring in Order 41 Rule 1 of CPC , the Apex Court held that the Income Tax Officer had power to examine the record and if on such examination he discovered that he had made a mistake, he could rectify the error, which may be an error of fact or of law, provided, no additional material or reasoning is necessary to detect that mistake. The Supreme Court sustained t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
