Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 35 (0.45 seconds)
Monarch Foods Pvt. Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 25 January, 1995 cites

T. S. Balaram, Income Tax ... vs M/S. Volkart Brothers, Bombay on 5 August, 1971

41. It needs no stress that Section 154 of the Act empowers an income-tax authority, referred to in Section 116, to modify any order passed by such authority under the Act. But such modification is to be made with a view to rectifying any mistake which is apparent from record. As held by the apex court in the case of T. S. Balaram, ITO v. Volhart Brothers [1971] 82 ITR 50, it is not each and every mistake which may fall for rectification by recourse to action under Section 154. The mistake whether it be of law or of fact must be apparent from record. As observed by their Lordships "a mistake apparent on the record 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. A decision on a debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from the record". A mistake which, in order to be established, requires a debate' and such debate may lead to two possibly reasonable views, would not be rectifiable within the limited scope of Section 154. If such mistake has resulted in underassessment of the income of the assessee or is otherwise erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, it may form the subject-matter of reassessment under Section 147/148 or revision under Section 263, as the case may be, but would not be rectifiable under Section 154 of the Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 841 - K S Hegde - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next