TMI Blog1990 (6) TMI 196X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h 31, 1977. Notices were issued to the petitioner by the Superintendent of Taxes from time to time in that regard. The petitioner did not comply with the same. Opportunity was also given in terms of the proviso to section 9(4) of the Act. The last date was fixed on May 27, 1977. The petitioner did not avail of the same. Under the circumstances, the Superintendent of Taxes made his own enquiries for the purpose of making summary assessment. He sent his Inspector to visit the business premises of the petitioner to examine the books of account. The Inspector visited on more than one occasion but the accounts were not made available to him by the petitioner on one plea or the other. The Superintendent of Taxes, therefore, estimated the turnover ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was made that the petitioner should be assessed as per the particulars furnished in the rectification petitions. The Superintendent of Taxes by his order dated March 30, 1979, rejected the petitions on the ground that there was no mistake apparent on the face of the record. Against the said orders the petitioner moved revision petitions before the Commissioner of Taxes. The Commissioner of Taxes by a common order dated March 3, 1980, rejected the revision petitions on the ground that what was sought for in the rectification petition was redetermination of the turnover of the petitioner and not rectification of any mistake apparent from the records. The Commissioner of Taxes, therefore, held that the case of the petitioner did not fall with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ereof may, at any time within three years from the date of such assessment or order and of its own motion, rectify any mistake apparent from the records of the case, and shall, within the like period, rectify any such mistake as has been brought to its notice by a dealer:" 5.. From a plain reading of section 12 itself, it is clear that the power under this section is limited to rectification of mistakes which are apparent from the records of the case. What needs our consideration is the true meaning and scope of the expression "mistake apparent from the records of the case". It appears that identical expression used in section 35 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 and section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, had come up for interpretation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore, held that a decision on a debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from the record. 7.. From the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court, it is clear that "a mistake apparent from the record" under section 12(1) of the Act means a mistake which is obvious, patent and self-evident from the records of the case. It does not cover any mistake that may be discovered by a complicated process of investigation, argument or proof. Similarly, a mistake on which conceivably there can be two opinions, cannot also be rectified by virtue of this section. A decision on a debatable point of law or failure to apply the law to a set of facts which remains to be investigated cannot also be corrected by way of rectification. It should no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
