9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (7) TMI 23X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 256 (2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1965-66 : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to Explanation 1 to rule 2 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, there was a mistake apparent from the record within the meaning of section 13 of the said Act and whether the Income-tax Officer was entitled to make ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court in the case of T. S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Bros. [1971] 82 ITR 50, he cancelled the order of the Income-tax Officer made under section 13. In the appeal before the Tribunal, the Departmental representative submitted that in the original assessment, the sum of Rs. 18 lakhs was wrongly included in the capital base and that that was an obvious mistake of law. The said mistake could be rect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee was that the bonus shares amounting to Rs. 18 lakhs were issued by writing up the fixed assets in 1948 and in 1961 those assets were written down from the general reserve and other reserves and the result was that the reserves came down by the said amount of Rs. 18 lakhs. Thus, materially, there was no writing up of the fixed assets in the year 1961. It was further submitted by him that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iction to rectify the mistake under section 13. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal was justified in holding that there was no mistake apparent from the record to be rectified under section 13. For the reasons aforesaid, we answer the question in this reference in the negative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. YUSUF J. -I agree. - - TaxTMI - T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
