Skip to content


Commissioner of Income Tax, Jabalpur Vs. Keshri Metal Pvt. Ltd., Raipur - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1999SC3801; [1999]237ITR165(SC); JT1999(3)SC45; (1999)9SCC165
ActsIncome Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 154
AppellantCommissioner of Income Tax, Jabalpur
RespondentKeshri Metal Pvt. Ltd., Raipur
Excerpt:
.....(a) in the first round of litigation as to excisability or dutiability of the items in question had become final. nor was that order binding on the appellate tribunal. after 2001 amendment to section 35-a, the commissioner (a) continues to exercise the powers of adjudicating authority in the matters of assessment. hence, appeal to appellate tribunal against the order of commissioner (a) passed in the second round, is maintainable. -- sections 35-l, 35-g, 3 & 4: quantification of excise duty relevant factors assessee manufacturing plant and equipment falling under sub-heading 8479.90, cet act, 1985 under a composite contract with certain other parties, it supplying to them in addition to the equipments manufactured by it, various duty-paid bought-out items to facilitate..........at rs. 12,00,368/- as against unabsorbed loss of rs. 17,230/-. he was of opinion that there was a mistake apparent from the record and he made the rectification after giving to the assessee the opportunity of being heard.3. in appeal, the commissioner of income-tax (appeals) cancelled the order under section 154. he noted that the mistake to be rectified had to be apparent from the record; it had to be an obvious mistake and not something on which there might conceivably be two points of view. the income-tax appellate tribunal confirmed the view taken by the commissioner (appeals).4. on the application of the revenue, the tribunal referred the question aforementioned to the high court and it drew up a statement of case.5. the high court answered the reference, as aforestated, in favour.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. The High Court answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue the following question:

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in upholding the finding of the learned C.I.T. (A) who cancelled the order of the Assessing Officer passed on 18-6-1991 under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961?

2. The Revenue is in appeal. The order of assessment was made on 30th March, 1990. It was then rectified under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 because the assessing officer found that depreciation under the Companies Act had been allowed at Rs. 11,53,374/- whereas it was actually allowable at Rs. 11,38,057/-. He also found that unabsorbed depreciation had been taken at Rs. 12,00,368/- as against unabsorbed loss of Rs. 17,230/-. He was of opinion that there was a mistake apparent from the record and he made the rectification after giving to the assessee the opportunity of being heard.

3. In appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) cancelled the order under Section 154. He noted that the mistake to be rectified had to be apparent from the record; it had to be an obvious mistake and not something on which there might conceivably be two points of view. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal confirmed the view taken by the Commissioner (Appeals).

4. On the application of the Revenue, the Tribunal referred the question aforementioned to the High Court and it drew up a statement of case.

5. The High Court answered the reference, as aforestated, in favour of the assessee, holding that the Tribunal and the Commissioner of Appeals were justified in taking the view that no occasion for rectification arose. It also opined that these were questions of fact and no question of law arose.

6. We have heard learned Counsel. We do not agree that the question raises a pure question of fact; to that extent, the High Court was in error. But it was not in error in coming to the conclusion that there was no occasion for rectification. Under the provisions of Section 154 there has to be a mistake apparent from the record. In other words, a look at the record must show there has been an error, and that error may be rectified. Learned counsel for the revenue has not been able to satisfy us that it shows any apparent error upon the record. Reference to document outside the record and the law impermissible when applying the provision of section 154.

7. The appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //