9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (2) TMI 59X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m the record capable of rectification under section 35 of the Wealth-tax Act ? " The question arises in the following circumstances : The original assessment of the assessee for the year 1983-84 was completed by determining the value of the shares under rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules. The value of the shares determined was at the rate of Rs. 693.75 per share. The order of assessment was passed on December 21, 1987. Purporting to exercise jurisdiction under section 35 of the Wealth-tax Act, the Wealth-tax Officer corrected the value of shares from Rs. 693.75 to Rs. 754.92, by order dated February 29, 1988. Before the said order was passed, the Wealth-tax Officer issued a notice to the assessee under section 35 of the Wealth-tax Act. In re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on is whether there was any mistake apparent from the record in so far as the original order of assessment for the year 1983-84 is concerned. Now we may read section 35 of the Act, in so far as it is relevant for our purpose, which runs as follows : " 35. Rectification of mistakes. -- (1) With a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record -- (a) the Assessing Officer may amend any order of assessment or of refund or any other order passed by him ; (aa) a wealth-tax authority may amend any intimation sent by it under sub-section (1) of section 16 or enhance or reduce the amount of refund granted by it under that sub-section ; (aaa) the Valuation Officer may amend any order passed by him under section 16A ; (b) the Dep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . (P.) Ltd., Chilakaluripet, was fixed at Rs. 693.75. In the case of the same assessee for the earlier assessment year, the Tribunal also fixed the value at the same rate. That order of the Tribunal which was binding on the Revenue when the power under section 35 of the Act was invoked was, however, reversed by this court in CIT v. M. Lakshmaiah [1988] 174 ITR 4. It is urged that the order passed in exercise of the power under section 35 of the Act can be supported from that judgment which shows that there was a mistake apparent from the record. That judgment came after about ten days of the rectification order passed by the Wealth-tax Officer. Inasmuch as the judgment of the High Court in Lakshmaiah's case [1988] 174 ITR 4 (AP), was not de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the Income-tax Officer withdrawing interest was valid. Rejecting that contention our High Court held that the decision of this court in Kangundi's case [1980] 121 ITR 339 was rendered on March 6, 1979, but the jurisdiction under section 154 was exercised by the Income-tax Officer on August 30, 1977, long before the said judgment of the High Court, so the proceedings initiated by the Income-tax Officer for rectification of mistake were not with reference to the judgment of the High Court and on the date when the Income-tax Officer exercised his jurisdiction under section 154, the matter was not free from argument or debate, therefore, it could not be said that there was a mistake apparent from the record. For the above reasons, we ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
