9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (11) TMI 18X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orked out in Schedule E of the notes in their annual accounts. Even in previous years, losses so claimed had been allowed. On July 17, 1981, the petitioners were served with a notice issued by the Income-tax Officer. It stated that the petitioners' assessment orders for the assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78 required amendment as there was in each a mistake apparent from the record within the meaning of section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The details of the proposed rectification were given in an enclosed statement and the petitioners were required to show cause there against. The statement said, inter alia, thus: "The company has been allowed a loss of Rs. 4,31,086 under section 36(vi) in respect of animals sold/died. The loss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er should also be treated as a notice under section 154 for the assessment year 1978-79. This petition challenges the notices dated July 17, 1981, and May 2 1, 1982. It was submitted by Mr. Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioners, that this was not a case of a mistake apparent from the record to which the provisions of section 154 could apply. Section 154 entitles the income-tax authority to amend any order passed by it under the provisions of the Act " with a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record". In the case of T. S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Brothers [1971] 82 ITR 50, the Supreme Court held that " a mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... actual cost to the assessee of the animals and the amount, if any, realised in respect of the carcasses or animals ". The Income-tax Officer stated in the first of the impugned notices that the petitioners had been allowed losses under section 36(1)(vi) in respect of cattle which had been sold or had died but that the losses had not been worked out properly. He stated that no account was required to be taken in respect of the valuation of cattle at the beginning of the year or at the close of the year. He stated that the cost of each and every animal should be ascertained and the correct loss allowed. In the second of the impugned notices, however, he accepted the position that the cost of each and every animal could not be ascertained. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
