TMI Blog1956 (11) TMI 46X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... um branches and adding a sum of ₹ 7,000 in respect of the Kottayam branch. A sum of ₹ 21,134 which was claimed as speculation loss in oil and pepper was also disallowed. After an unsuccessful appeal as regards the dis- allowance of the loss, before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the petitioner took the matter before the Commissioner under section 46(2) of the Travancore Act. The Commissioner, by his order dated 18th August, 1951, found that the set-off of the loss required re-investigation and so he set aside the assessment and remitted the matter with a direction to the Income-tax Officer to make a fresh assessment. 3. Purporting to carry out the Commissioner's directions, as to re-assessment, the Income-tax Off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 000 from the cost price of 33 lakhs and odd, towards transport charges, for getting the ex-mill cost, a sum of 9 lakhs was deducted instead. The Appellate Tribunal's ratio of four per cent. more or less instead of five per cent. would then give not ₹ 12,000, but ₹ 30,662. The Income-tax Officer accordingly gave notice and proceeded to re-estimate the addition to be made at ₹ 30,662 in exercise of his jurisdiction by way of rectifi- cation of mistake in the assessment order of the Appellate Tribunal. It is this revised order dated 8th November, 1955, and filed as Exhibit F that is sought to be quashed by the writ motion herein. 5. The petition is resisted by the respondent on the ground that as the addition made by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be, and shall within the like period rectify any such mistake which has been brought to his notice by an assessee. Clause (2) then says: (2) The provisions of sub-section (1) apply also in like manner to the rectifications of mistakes by the Appellate Tribunal. The section, it is clear, empowers the various authorities, the Com- missioner, Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Tribunal, each to rectify its own mistakes and not that of any other or others. The corresponding rule which obtains under section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure runs as follows: Clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission may at an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... trast to section 33B of the Indian Act that the Commissioner's order in revision ought not to be prejudicial to the assessee. See N. Sundareswaran v. Income-tax Commissioner A.I.R. 1956 T.C. 198. The Tribunal was, on the other side, oppressed by the fact that the result disclosed by the books were exceedingly low. So, when they sug- gested the adoption of levels in comparable cases and consequent addi- tion of some lower figures, the assessee expressed agreement as regards the quantum of addition and withdrew the other contentions. And to formalise the matter, the Tribunal got from the assessee his consent in writing as follows: As proposed by the Tribunal I am agreeable to the reduction of ₹ 24,000 in the total income compute ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
