Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2019 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (2) TMI 323 - HC - Income TaxRectification of mistake - impact of subsequent decision passed by the High court after the order of assessment - The question as to whether blending of tea is production or manufacture is debatable. - Held that:- The assessment orders were passed subsequent to the law being settled in Apeejay [1991 (9) TMI 6 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT]. The assessment orders are not prior to Apeejay (supra) so as to attract the ratio of Geo Miller & Co. Ltd. [2003 (2) TMI 38 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT]. Tara Agencies [2007 (7) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] has held that, processing of tea would fall short of either manufacturing or production. Purtabpore Co. Ltd. [1985 (7) TMI 49 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] has held that, a rectification under Section 154 of the Act of 1961 is permissible in order to bring the order of assessment in terms of an authoritative pronouncement of the Court. The Income Tax authorities are preparing to bring the orders of assessment in time with the ratio of Apeejay through the process initiated by the impugned show cause notices. They are entitled to do so. Section 154 can be invoked to correct an error apparent on the face of the record. An order of assessment must be in tune with the law laid down by a binding precedent. The subject orders of assessment not being in terms of the ratio of Apeejay (supra) contains errors. An error in an order not in consonance with a binding precedent is an error apparent on the face of the record.
|