Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.38 seconds)Section 43B in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 7 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 147 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 263 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Food Specialities Ltd. on 12 September, 1984
5. Considering the above submissions we find substance in the
contention of the Ld, AR that before invoking the provisions of Section 154
of the Act, the A.O. ought to have pointed out specifically that there is
mistake apparent from record in the assessment order which the A.O.
5 ITA No.2946/Del/2011
proposed to rectify and has rectified the same. In our view after framing an
assessment the A.O. can acquire jurisdiction to interfere with the said
assessment order only after recording that there is mistake apparent from
record in the assessment order which require rectification under Section 154
of the Act. Since provision laid down under Section 154 of the Act is
restricted to be invoked only in case of rectification of mistake apparent
from the record in an order already passed, the A.O. is required to confine
the rectification only in case of any mistake which is apparent from the
record in the order passed. An assessment order framed u/S 143(3) of the
Act reaches its finality subject to rectification u/S 154, revision u/S 263,
reopening u/S 147 or appeal, etc., if any preferred within the prescribed
conditions and time limit. The object of the legislature is to settle an issue at
the earliest and preferably within the prescribed time limit and thus
interference with such settled position has been allowed with several
restrictions and conditions, compliance of which is thus required to be
strictly adhered to. The Hon'ble jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case
of CIT Vs. Food Specialities Ltd. (1985) 156 ITR- 790 (Delhi) has been
pleased to hold that mistake apparent from record for the purpose of Section
154 means mistake which is patent and obvious and not something which
can be established by a long process of reasoning.
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Bata India Ltd. vs Iac & Ors. on 8 December, 2000
In the case of Bata India Ltd. Vs. IAC & others (2001) 249
ITR 491 (Calcutta), notice under Section 154 was issued on the ground that
the deduction of payment made to workman sickness benefit society was
wrongly allowed. It was held by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court that notice
issued under Section 154 was not valid as Section 154 can be invoked only
for the purpose of rectifying any mistake apparent from record. It was held
that notice nowhere mentions what was the apparent and patent mistake in
the assessment order. The A.O. cannot sit upon the judgment of assessment
order in the garb of rectification of mistake. Similar are the facts in the
present case before us. Neither in the notice issued under Section 154 nor in
the order passed under Section 154 the A.O. it has been pointed out as to
what is the mistake apparent from record in the assessment order / which he
proposed to rectify invoking the provisions of Section 154 of the Act.
Parle Products (P.) Ltd. vs First Income-Tax Officer on 12 June, 1985
The Hon'ble Bombay
6 ITA No.2946/Del/2011
High Court, in the case of Parle Products (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (1991) 191 ITR
510 (Bombay), has been pleased to hold that a mistake which is not glaring
and obvious from the records cannot be rectified under Section 154 of the
Act. In this case scope and validity of the provisions under Section 154 have
been discussed.
1