TMI Blog1988 (7) TMI 53X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e in its order dated November 7, .1978, as a result of the Madhya Pradesh High Court decision in CIT v. Jaora Oil Mill [1981] 129 ITR 423, subsequently given on the similar point in issue, were correct in law ? " The material facts giving rise to this reference briefly, are as follows For the assessment year 1971-72, the assessee filed a return showing a net loss of Rs. 73,886. The Income-tax Officer, however, computed the net loss at Rs. 32,519. The Income-tax Officer held that the assessee had concealed the particulars of income and penalty proceedings were, therefore, initiated against the assessee under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. After taking into consideration the explanation of the assessee, the Income-tax Officer held that as th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fficer had not determined any income of the assessee exigible to tax for the assessment year in question. Learned counsel for the assessee contended that though the decision reported in [1981] 129 ITR 423 was delivered subsequent to the order passed by the Tribunal, the order passed by the Tribunal deserved to be rectified under section 154 of the Act. Reliance was placed on the decisions in Parshuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. v. D. R. Trivedi . WTO [1975] 100 ITR 651 (Guj), Mettur Chemical and Industrial Corporation Ltd. v. CIT [1977] 110 ITR 822 (Mad) and CIT v. Mohan Lal Kansal [1978] 114 ITR 583 (P H). In reply, it was contended on behalf of the Department that the Tribunal had rightly come to the conclusion that there was no mistake o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and in the circumstances of that case, the concealed income was Rs. 50,000 only. Learned counsel for the assessee contended that from the decision given in CIT v. Jaora Oil Mill [1981] 129 ITR 423 (MP), it logically followed that unless the Income-tax Officer had determined any amount as income of the assessee exigible to tax in any assessment year, the provisions of section 271 (1)(c) of the Act would not be attracted and the Tribunal was, therefore, not justified in upholding the order imposing penalty on the assessee. The contention cannot be upheld. It may be that in the circumstances of a given case, a mistake discovered in an order on the basis of subsequent judgment of the High Court may be a mistake apparent on the record and a grou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
