TMI Blog1971 (4) TMI 12X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The petitioner alleges that during the course of the said assessment proceedings for the said assessment year before the Income-tax Officer the petitioner produced and/or caused to be produced various books of accounts, papers and other documents and had given various explanations, information and evidence that was necessary and/or required by the Income-tax Officer. The petitioner contends that the petitioner disclosed all primary facts and material facts necessary for the proper assessment. Since the assessment year 1952-53 onwards including the assessment year 1963-64 the petitioner had claimed and had been allowed depreciation at the special rate of 10 per cent., inter alia, on the machinery meant for and used in the manufacture of safety razor blades from steel strips under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 and the Income-tax Act, 1961. For the assessment year 1963-64 the petitioner was assessed at a total income of Rs. 42,17,021 under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In so assessing the petitioner the Income-tax Officer had allowed the petitioner depreciation on the said machinery amongst other things at a special rate of 10 per cent. For the said assessment year ce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as such the question of interpretation could not be a mistake apparent from the record. In the premises the petitioner submitted that the proceedings under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were without jurisdiction. It has been alleged that the Income-tax Officer adjourned the case up to November 6, 1970, and was not inclined to accept the petitioner's contention. Thereupon, the petitioner has moved this court under article 226 of the Constitution challenging the said proceedings. Two points were taken in the petition, firstly, that there was no mistake apparent from the record and as such section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, had no application, and, secondly, that after the assessment order had merged in the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the Income-tax Officer had not retained the jurisdiction to take steps for rectification. At the hearing of this application no argument was advanced before me on the second aspect mentioned hereinbefore and counsel for the petitioner confined his submissions only on the first point. I, therefore, need not consider the second question at all. The short question with which I am concerned in this application, is whethe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ategory (a) where the depreciation is nil and the other is category (b) which is " other machinery and plant (blast furnace plant, steel making plant, steel rolling plant, forges, generators, boilers and sheet mills) ". These are allowed depreciation at 10 per cent. From the petition and the averments made therein and the statements made in the affidavit-in-opposition it is apparent that the mistake that is proposed to be rectified is dependent on the question whether the machinery used for production of safety razor blades can be said to be part of " Iron Steel Industry " and can come within category (b) mentioned hereinbefore. This requires interpretation of the expression " other machinery and plant ". It was contended that other machinery and plant was intended to cover all machinery used in iron steel industry apart from the rolling mill rolls. It was urged that otherwise there was no purpose of using the expression " other ". It was further urged that in respect of this machine-rolling mill roll only nil depreciation was allowed for special reasons mentioned in the column of remarks. On the other hand it was urged on behalf of the respondent that the particular items ment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding provision is section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, depended upon the existence of mistake apparent from the record. That mistake need not be a clerical or mathematical mistake. It might be a mistake of fact as well as a mistake of law. A mistake would become a mistake apparent from the record when it was a glaring, obvious or self-evident mistake. A mistake which had to be discovered by a long drawn process of reasoning or examining arguments on points, where there might conceivably be two opinions, could not be said to be a mistake or error which was apparent from the record. In the case of Volkart Brothers v. Income-tax Officer, Companies Circle IV(4), Bombay, more or less the same position was reiterated by the Bombay High Court. In the case of P. M. Bharucha Co. v. G. S. Venkatesan, Income-tax Officer, Circle I, Ward A, Bhavnagar, the Gujarat High Court reiterates almost the same position. It, therefore, appears to me that the mistake, if any, in this case is one which cannot be called either obvious or glaring or self-evident. It is a mistake which appears from the record, but it is not apparent. It is a mistake which has to be discovered after interpretation of a ce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
