Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.03 seconds)Smt. Baljeet Jolly vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 2 August, 2000
In the case of Smt. Baljeet Jolfy v. CIT [2001] 250 ITR 1132 (Delhi). It was held that where an error was far from self evident, it ceased to be an apparent error. The so called inaccuracies or wrong recording of facts as alleged were not patent mistakes which constitute the sine qua non for exercise of power under Section 254(2) of the Act.
Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd vs Commr. Of Income Tax, West Bengal, ... on 27 September, 1978
It was further contended that because the assessee takes up the burden of recovery on his head, the commission which is charged is on a higher side because otherwise, in this line of business, the commission for a transport agent runs from 1-3% only as against 10% in this case. The account extract in details in respect of Sudershan Chemicals Ltd., was also submitted to show that the billing is done by the assessee only in respect of his own tankers as well as the tankers taken on commission. Lastly, it was submitted that even if this amount or part thereof was considered as bad debts, in that event, also the assessee's method of accounting of reducing the trading receipts directly by these bad debts is effectively same as the method of first taking the gross receipts and then deducting the bad debts therefrom because the manner of making book entries does not matter. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sultej Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT [ 1979] 116 ITR land in the case of A. V. Thomas & Co. v. CIT [1963] 48 ITR 67. This Tribunal decided the whole issue in para 16 of its order which reads as under:
A. V. Thomas & Co., Ltd., Alleppey vs The Commissioner Of ... on 25 October, 1962
It was further contended that because the assessee takes up the burden of recovery on his head, the commission which is charged is on a higher side because otherwise, in this line of business, the commission for a transport agent runs from 1-3% only as against 10% in this case. The account extract in details in respect of Sudershan Chemicals Ltd., was also submitted to show that the billing is done by the assessee only in respect of his own tankers as well as the tankers taken on commission. Lastly, it was submitted that even if this amount or part thereof was considered as bad debts, in that event, also the assessee's method of accounting of reducing the trading receipts directly by these bad debts is effectively same as the method of first taking the gross receipts and then deducting the bad debts therefrom because the manner of making book entries does not matter. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sultej Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT [ 1979] 116 ITR land in the case of A. V. Thomas & Co. v. CIT [1963] 48 ITR 67. This Tribunal decided the whole issue in para 16 of its order which reads as under:
Orissa Cement Ltd And Ors. Etc. Etc vs State Of Orissa And Ors. Etc. Etc on 4 April, 1991
It is no doubt true that a mistake capable of being rectified-under Section 254(2) is not confined to clerical or arithmetical mistakes. On the other hand, it does not cover any mistake which may be discovered by a complicated process of investigation, argument or proof. As observed by the Supreme Court in Master Construction Co. (P. ) Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1966] 17 STC 360, an error which is apparent on the face of the record should be one which is not an error which depends for its discovery on elaborate arguments on questions of fact or law.
Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde And ... vs Millikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale on 25 September, 1959
A similar view was also expressed in Satyariarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale AIR 1960 SC 137. It is to be noted that the language used in Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is different from the language used in Section 254(2) of the Act. Power is given to various authorities to rectify 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'. Mistake is an ordinary word, but in taxation laws, it has a special significance. It is not an arithmetical or clerical error alone that comes within its purview. It comprehends errors which, after a judicious probe into the record from which it is supposed to emanate, are discerned. The word 'mistake' is inherently indefinite in scope, as what may be a mistake for one may not be one for another. It is mostly subjective and the dividing line in border areas is thin and indiscernible. It is something which a duly and judiciously instructed mind can find out from the record. In order to attract the power to rectify under Section 254(2) it is not sufficient if there is merely a mistake in the orders sought to be rectified. The mistake to be rectified must be one apparent from the record. A decision on the debatable point of law or undisputed question of fact is not a mistake apparent from the record. The plain meaning of the word 'apparent' is that it must be something which appears to be so ex facie and it is in capable of argument or debate. It is therefore, follows that a decision on a debatable point of law or fact or failure to apply the law to a set of facts which remains to be investigated cannot be corrected by way of rectification.
Addl. Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Ram Bahadur Thakur & Co. on 8 November, 1978
18. As is apparent from the discussions held in preceding paragraphs, that a rectification application can lie only with regard to an error on the face of the record which has not been pointed out or emerged from the material on record and moreover, reasonable of expenditure cannot be subject-matter of rectification arid in this regard Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. Ram Bahadur Thakur Ltd. [l999] 237 ITR 2171 held as under:
Jamshedpur Motor Accessories Stores vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 24 April, 1973
(v) that the assessee proved from the affidavit of Shri Prakash Mutha that repairs and maintenance was the responsibility of the assessee and they are incurred by the assessee. The learned counsel further submitted that the CIT(A) erred in holding that by following the doctrine of preponderance of probabilities, the assessee had not spent any money for repairs of the tankers. He admitted that there were no written agreements with the chassis owners on whose chassis the tankers were fitted. But that does not mean that the arrangement is non-genuine. In support of this contention, he relied upon the comments of the learned Author is Chaturvedi & Pithisaria at page 2134. He also placed reliance on the judgment of the Patna High Court in the case of Jamshedpur Motor Accessories Stores v. CIT [1974] 95 ITR 664.
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Zafrul Hassan Iraqi Itat, Jaipur Bench on 26 October, 1998
22. Similar situation arose before Orissa High Court in the case of CIT v. ITAT [1992] 198 ITR 1882 wherein it was held as under:
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Ramesh Electric And Trading Co. on 6 November, 1992
(b) Whether order with respect to ground No. 5 of appeal could be recalled and issue could be reheared or re-adjudicated upon without pointing out mistake apparent from record in the light of various decisions including that of jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of CIT v. Ramesh Electric & Trading Co. [1993] 203 ITR 497 (Bom.)?