9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (3) TMI 73X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch 12, 1999. The petitioner-assessee filed his return for the assessment year 1994-95 declaring the income at Rs. 41,550. He claimed depreciation on motor vehicle in terms of section 32(1) of the Act. It was accepted. Even in the regular assessment after verification of the books of account, statement and other particulars filed by the petitioner, the claim was allowed in terms of the order dated April 17, 1995. Thereafter a notice under section 154 was issued by the first respondent proposing to rectify the assessment mode under section l43(3) of the Act in respect of depreciation. Objections were filed. Thereafter an order was passed withdrawing the depreciation granted to the petitioner. A representation was filed and the petitioner wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passed an adverse order on the ground that there were mistakes apparent from the records. The revisional authority accepted the said finding. Let me see as to whether the discretion exercised by the respondent is correct or not in the given set of facts. From a reading of the notice it is clear that the respondents are trying to rectify a mistake under section 154. The same was objected to. The Income-tax Officer says that there were mistakes apparent on the face of the record. The revision filed was also rejected. A combined reading of this material would show that it is not an absolute lack of pleadings, but a case of "some pleadings". The argument of Sri Indra Kumar, learned counsel, that there are no pleadings as such, cannot be accepte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere was no error apparent from the record which could be corrected by the Assessing Officer by invoking the provisions of section 154. A Division Bench of this court in M.D. Narayan v. Agrl. ITO [1974] 95 ITR 452 has set aside the rectification order in same or similar situation. The Division Bench has ruled that two views were possible on the question of ownership and such a case was not a matter involving an error apparent on the record which could be rectified under section 37 of the Act. In the case on hand, in the guise of a mistake they are trying to set aside one view of the assessing authority. In these circumstances and in the light of the decided cases, I am satisfied that section 154 is not available to the authorities. In th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
