9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (7) TMI 91X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... take apparent on record?" The facts of the case are as follows: For the relevant assessment years, the assessee-firm applied for registration under section 185(1)(b) of the Act. Registration was refused by the Assessing Officer and for all these years, the assessee was an unregistered firm. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 154 of the Act stating that a mistake was committed by the assessee in not assessing the respondent/assessee under section 183(b) of the Act. An objection was filed to the petition by the assessee. It was also rejected. Against that order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), after hearing both sides, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice tinder section 154 of the Act was issued. The question before us is whether the exercise of power under section 154 is valid or not. Section 154 of the Act states that with a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record an income-tax authority referred to in section 116 may amend any order passed by it under the provisions of the Act. So the exercise should be to rectify any mistake apparent from the record. It is not the case that the Assessing Officer wanted to assess the assessee under section 183(b) of the Act and that it was by a mistake that it was not done. The only case is that he failed to apply under section 183(b) of the Act earlier. As has been repeatedly held by courts, it is not sufficient, if there is merel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . In such a case, if the officer had really some information which came into his possession subsequent to the assessment he may have powers to start proceedings under section 147(b) but he cannot have recourse to section 154. This is not a case where action can be taken both under section 147 and section 154 so that if action was taken under one of them instead of the other such action could not be held to be bad". The Gujarat High Court had occasion to considered the question in P. M. Bharucha and Co. v. G. S. Venkatesan, ITO [1969] 74 ITR 513. In that case, it was held that a mistake apparent on the face of the record must be one to point out which no elaborate argument is required. It must be a glaring, obvious or self-evident mistake. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
