Judgment

PATHAK, J. :- This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Allahabad dismissing a writ petition filed by the appellant.

2. The appellant is a private limited company carrying on the business of the manufacture and sale of locks used in suitcases. It filed a return of its-income for the assessment year 1963-64 and was assessed to income-tax by an assessment order dated March 12, 1968. No claim was made by the assessee for rebate under S. 84 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. There was an appeal by the assessee to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax but no claim was made for rebate at that stage either. Subsequently on Aug. 20, 1969 the appellant made an application under S. 154 of the Income-tax Act praying for rectification of the assessment order by the grant of relief under S. 84 of the Act. The application was rejected by the Income-tax Officer. A revision application moved by the appellant before the Commissioner of Income-tax was also rejected on March 6, 1972. Against the order of the Commissioner the appellant now filed a writ petition in the High Court of Allahabad. The High Court dismissed the writ petition on Sept. 23, 1972. And now this appeal by special leave.

3. Section 84 of the Income-tax Act, as it stood at the relevant time, provided that income-tax would not be payable by an assessee on so much of the profits and gains derived from any industrial undertaking to which the section applied as did not exceed 6 per cent per annum on the capital employed in such undertaking computed in the prescribed manner. The section applied to an industrial undertaking which satisfied certain conditions detailed in the section. It may be observed that S. 84 was deleted with effect from April 1, 1968 and now finds place as S. 80J in the Act.

4. The appellant contends that the income-tax authorities were obliged to exercise the jurisdiction conferred by S. 154 of the Act and grant relief to the appellant under S. 84. S. 154 empowers the Income-tax Officer to rectify any mistake apparent from the record and for that purpose to amend an assessment order passed by him. It is urged that the income-tax authorities and the High Court erred in holding that no mistake was apparent from the record merely because no claim to relief under S. 84 had been made by the appellant before the Income-tax Officer during the assessment proceedings. It is contended that an obligation was imposed on the Income-tax Officer by the statute to grant such relief and it could not be refused merely because the appellant had omitted to claim the relief. While we believe the appellant is right in his contention, we do not think that the mere existence of such an obligation on the Income-tax Officer is sufficient. Before the Income-tax. Officer can grant relief there must be clear data on the assessment record sufficient to enable him to consider whether the relief should be granted. In the absence of such material, no fault can be found with the Income-tax Officer for not making an order under S. 84 favouring the assessee. It will be noticed from the provisions of S. 84 that several conditions must be satisfied before the grant of relief can be considered. The industrial undertaking should not have been formed by the splitting of, or the reconstruction of, a business already in existence. It should not have been formed by the transfer to a new business of a building, machinery or plant previously used for any purpose. It should manufacture or produce articles in any part of India, which manufacture or production should have begun at any time within 23 years next following April 1, 1948 or such other further period as the Central Government may specify. An industrial undertaking manufacturing or producing articles should be found to employ10 or more workers in a manufacturing process carried on with the aid of power or to employ 20 or more persons in a manufacturing process carried on without the ai