9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 1039X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat there is no error apparent on the face of the record in the Assessment Order dated 19.04.2021 for the Assessment Year 2018-19 and also to direct the Respondent to rectify the re-assessment order dated 19.04.2021. 2. The case of the Petitioner is that in the course of re-assessment proceedings, the Assessment Officer have wrongly added ICDS to the tune of Rs. 1,16,94,559/- (Rupees One Crore Sixteen Lakhs Ninety Four Thousand Five Hundred and Fifty Nine only) while computing taxable income under Section 115JB of the Act . It is further stated that in terms of provisions of law, ICDS will be added in the normal course in determining the income, but in the present case on hand, the assessee is liable to pay the tax in terms of provisions u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of Rs. 1,16,94,559/- (Rupees One Crore Sixteen Lakhs Ninety Four Thousand Five Hundred and Fifty Nine only) while computing income in terms of Section 115JB of the Act. There is no provision in law to add ICDS and therefore when there was no provision, the question of adding the said ICDS while calculating deemed income under Section 115JB would not arise. 6. In such view of the matter, the aforesaid error has to be rectified. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.K.Venkatachalam Vs. Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. reported in [1958] 34 ITR 143 (SC) dealt with this aspect in the following manner: "It is in the light of this position that the extent of the Income-tax Officer's power under section 35 to rectify mistak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m a mistake apparent from the record. That is why we think that the Income-tax officer was justified in the present case in exercising his power under section 35 and rectifying the said mistakes. Incidentally we may mention that in Meka Venkatappaiah V. Additional Income-tax officer Bapatala [1957] 32 ITR 274, the High Court of Andhra has taken the same view." 7. From the perusal of the above decision, it is clear that in the event of any mistakes on the record both in law and on facts, it can be rectified. Following the same, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order. Therefore, I set aside the order passed by the Respondent dated 19.04.2021 and remitted the matter back to the authority concerned for rectification. In the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
