9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 1206X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner was without jurisdiction as the assessing officer is empowered to rectify a mistake which is apparent from the record. The power of the officers mentioned in Section 154 is to correct any mistake apparent from the record is undoubtedly not more than that of the High Court to entertain a writ petition on the basis of an error apparent on the face of the record . Court spelt out the distinction between the expressions error apparent on the face of the record and mistake apparent from the record and held suffice it to say that the Income Tax Officer was wholly wrong in holding that there was a mistake apparent from the record of the assessments of the first respondent. The meaning of the expression, error apparent on the face of record is wider than the expression mistake apparent from the record . An Assessing Officer is not incompetent to invoke the jurisdiction under section 154 of the Income tax Act, 1961 if such officer had committed a glaring mistake of fact or law while passing the assessment order as held by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Hero Cycles (P) Ltd [ 1997 (8) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT] If an Assessing Officer had also failed to do what ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... computation sheet, it was noticed that a an amount of Rs. 3,25,500/- being the excess refund granted under Section 143(1) was added back to the tax payable under Section 143(3) dated 23.01.2021. However, it is noticed that the corresponding interest leviable under Section 234D for excess refund was omitted to be levied. 4. It is therefore submitted that the power to rectify the Assessment Order dated 23.01.2020 under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was not available to the respondent to bring those issues which were neither considered nor reflected in the aforesaid Assessment Order dated 23.01.2021 passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. That apart, it is submitted that power to rectify an order under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is confined only to error apparent on the face on records or when there were clerical mistakes. It is submitted that there is no error apparent on the face on records in the scrutiny Assessment Order under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 23.01.2021. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court:- i. T.S.Balaram, Income Tax Officer v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o perused notice issued under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 28.09.2019 for limited scrutiny assessment regarding agricultural income of the petitioner and the assessment notice and assessment order passed under Section 143(3) of the Act on 23.01.2021. 15. The point for consideration is whether the invocation of Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was justified or not? and whether there was any error apparent on the face of record in the Assessment Order dated 23.01.2023 and therefore whether the invocation of Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was justified or not? 16. Assessment Order dated 23.01.2021 passed under Section 143(3) of the Act preceded notices issued under sub-section(1) of Section 142 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 23.01.2020 and 01.10.2020. 17. Relevant portion of the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, reads as under:- Sl.No Issues i. Agricultural Income ii. The assessee is private limited company. iii. On the basis of material available on record, the explanation of the assessee on above issue is accepted and hence no addition is made. iv. The assessment of income is done as per computation sheet an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was competent to rectify an order passed under Section 35 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 23. In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Hero Cycles (P) Ltd., (1997) 94 Taxman 271(SC), the Supreme Court held that the rectification under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act can only be made when glaring mistake of fact or law has been committed by the officer passing the order comes apparent from the record. The court held rectification is not possible if the question is debatable. The Court however held that the point which was not examined on fact or in law cannot be dealt as mistake apparent on the record. 24. In the case of Maharana Mills Private Limited vs. Income Tax Officer , [1959] 36 ITR 350 (SC), the Hon ble Supreme Court examined the word record . It held the word record as contemplated by Section 35 of the Income Tax Act, 1922 did not mean only the order of the assessment but it comprises all proceedings on which the assessment order is based. 25. This Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M.R.M Plantations Private Limited , [1999] 102 Taxman 1 (Mad.) held that the word record for the purpose of Section 154 (1) is the record available with the authorities at t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
