9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (8) TMI 63X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acts: The assessee-respondent was assessed for the aforesaid three assessment years under the Wealth-tax Act by the Wealth-tax Officer, Jodhpur, on February 6, 1971. The Wealth-tax Officer did not include the whole of jewellery and ornaments in the total wealth of the assessee in view of the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in C.W.T. V. Arundhati Balkrishna [1970] 77 I.T.R. 505. Subsequently, section 5(1)(viii) of the Wealth-tax Act was amended by the Finance (No. 2) Act of 1971 with retrospective effect from April 1, 1963. The effect of the amendment was that exemption in regard to jewellery and Ornaments for personal use ceased and the value of the jewellery and the ornaments intended for personal use became taxable. Con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the exemption granted in respect of jewellery and ornaments to the assessee at the time of the original assessment did not disclose any mistake apparent from the record which can be rectified under section 35 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ?" After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that no question of law arises in view of the fact that the original assessment does not disclose any mistake apparent from the record which can be rectified under section 35 of the Wealth-tax Act. The Tribunal was right in placing reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Brothers [1971] 8 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pable of argument or debate. The mistake can be regarded as 'apparent' only when it is 'glaring, obvious or self-evident mistake'. It must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may conceivably be two opinions. As the applicability of the amending provision to the completed assessment was itself a debatable point, it must be held that there was no mistake apparent from the record and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to rectify the original order dated June 26, 1970." A similar matter also came up before the Gujarat High Court in Padmavati Jaykrishna v. CWT [1976] 105 ITR 115. In that case, exemption was granted in res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... attract the application of section 154 of the Income-tax Act, it must be a case of a mistake and that mistake must be apparent on the record. In that case, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner with whom the Appellate Tribunal has agreed has stated that the case of the assessee is governed by Emerald Co. v. CIT [1959] 36 ITR 257, whereas the successor Income-tax Officer has rectified the so-called mistake in respect of capital gain on the basis of the principles laid down in CIT v. Dalmia Investment Co. [1964] 52 ITR 567. It was observed that no substantial question of law arises after the order of the Appellate Tribunal and the Tribunal was right in rejecting the application under section 256(1) of the Act as there was no obvious and pate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
