9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog1960 (12) TMI 14X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at Alwaye. It commenced business in January, 1951, and its first accounting year ended on December 31, 1951, and the relevant assessment year is 1952-53. It filed its return showing an income of Rs. 3,21,284 without taking into account the amount allowable under section 15C of the Act. On February 2, 1953, the net assessable income of the respondent was determined at Rs. 1,47,083 after deducting Rs. 1,79,081 under section 15C. The respondent, however, declared a dividend of Rs. 4,72,415 which attracted the application of section 2 of the Finance Act, 1952, read with Part B, proviso (ii), of the First Schedule and thus it became liable to the payment of additional income-tax and this fact was overlooked by the Income-tax Officer. After givi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Code of Civil Procedure for grant of review on the ground of mistake or error apparent on the face of the record and it construed it in the following words : " i.e., an evident error which does not require any extraneous matter to show its incorrectness. The error may be one of fact but is not limited to matters of fact and include also errors of law. But the law must be definite and capable of ascertainment. An erroneous view of law on a debatable point or a wrong exposition of the law or a wrong application of the law or a failure to apply the appropriate law cannot be considered a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record : see Chitaley's Civil Procedure Code, Volume III, PP. 3549-50, 5th edition. " On the ground th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is not one which is to be discovered as a result of an argument but it is open to the Income-tax Officer to examine the record including the evidence and if he discovers any mistake he is entitled to rectify the error provided that if the result is enhancement of assessment or reducing the refund then notice has to be given to the assessee and he should be allowed a reasonable opportunity of being heard. " In that case the error arose because of an initial mistake in determining the written down value which was subsequently rectified. In an earlier case, Venkatachalam v. Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. Ltd., where as a consequence of a subsequent amendment of the law having retrospective effect, the Income-tax Officer reduced the amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he learned judges have misdirected themselves because that section is mandatory. It provides : " Where, on making the regular assessment, the Income-tax Officer finds that no payment of tax has been made in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this section, interest calculated in the manner laid down in sub-section (6) shall be added to the tax as determined on the basis of the regular assessment. " Therefore, the Income-tax Officer was required to calculate the interest in the manner provided under the provisions of that sub-section and had to add it to the assessment. Counsel for the respondent sought to raise the question as to the applicability of proviso (ii) of Part B of the First Schedule of the Finance Act, 1952, and relie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
