9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 1039X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Petition u/s. 154 HELD THAT:- While passing the reassessment order, the Respondents have added ICDS while computing income in terms of Section 115JB of the Act. There is no provision in law to add ICDS and therefore when there was no provision, the question of adding the said ICDS while calculating deemed income under Section 115JB would not arise. In such view of the matter, the aforesaid error has to be rectified. As relying on MK VENKATACHALAM, INCOME-TAX OFFICER, AND ANOTHER [ 1958 (4) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT] it is clear that in the event of any mistakes on the record both in law and on facts, it can be rectified. Following the same, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order. - Honourable Mr. Justice Krishnan Rama ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity has to determine the deemed income without adding ICDS, but the authority has wrongly passed the reassessment order and thus there is an error apparent on the face of record. In support of this contention, he relied upon the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.K.Venkatachalam Vs. Bombay Dyeing Manufacturing Co. Ltd . reported in [1958] 34 ITR 143 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that if there is a mistake of fact apparent from the record of the assessment order, the same can be rectified under Section 35 of the Act. 3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent has fairly submitted that there is an error crept in passing the order, but the Respondent has not considered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n be no doubt that he had to read the principal Act as containing the inserted proviso as from April 1, 1952. If that be the true position then the order which he made giving credit to the respondent for Rs. 50,603-15.0 is plainly and obviously inconsistent with a specific and clear provision of the statute and that must inevitably be treated as a mistake of law apparent from the record. If a mistake of fact apparent from the record of the assessment order can be rectified under section 35, we see no reason why a mistake of law which is glaring and obvious cannot be simply rectified. Prima facie it may appear somewhat strange that an order which was good and valid when it was made should be treated as patently invalid and wrong by virtue of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
