The burden is on the Department to show that an assessment order suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record and requires rectification. The notice proposing rectification should furnish sufficient material to enable the Assessee to prefer objections.

( 1 ) THE petitioner is an assessee under the Mysore Agricultural Income- tax Act, 1957, hereinafter called the Act. For the assessment year 1967-68, the respondent made an order of assessment on the petitioner on 11-3-1968. While determining the taxable income for the assessment year, certain depreciation allowances on the assets of the petitioner were allowed. The said order of assessment was rectified by the respondent in exercise of the powers vested under S. 37 of the Act by his order dt. 28-5-1971. The said order has been challenged in this writ petition on several grounds. One of the grounds was that the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of being heard before making an order of rectification. The second ground was that the view of the law taken by the respondent with regard to the allowance of initial depreciation is patently erroneous. The respondent has filed a counter-affidavit in which it is stated that a notice was issued to the petitioner to appear on 10-2-1971 in response to which the petitioner sent a letter requesting for time by 15 days as he had to consult his Accountants and that the petitioner did not appear thereafter before the respondent.

( 2 ) NO fresh date of hearing was fixed by the respondent for the petitioner to appear after the expiry of 15 days. The respondent straightaway made the order of rectification on 28-5-1971. The petitioner is not correct in stating in his affidavit that the order of rectification impugned was made without notice; but it was the duty of the respondent to fix a fresh date for hearing and call upon the petitioner to appear on the said date. The petitioner could not have appeared on a future date unless a date was fixed for that purpose. Further, the notice that was issued in the instant case lacks the essential particulars of the alleged error. The Assessee must be put on notice of the case he has to meet. Without notice of the case of the Department, how can the Assessee meet the case? The notice dt. 18-1-1971 reads thus:" NOTICE under S. 37 of the MAIT Act, 1957 for rectification of certain mistakes apparent in the assessment orders for the assesment year 1966- 67 to 1967-68. It has come to the notice of the undersigned that depreciation was allowed in excels while allowing initial depreciation for the assessment years 1966-67 to 1967-68 and certain errors were found while calculating normal depreciation for the assessment years 1966-67 to 1967-68 to rectify the mistakes that are apparent in the assessment orders cited above under S. 37 of the MAIT Act, 1957, I issue this notice and request you to appear before me in my office at Hassan on 10-2-1971 at 11-30 a. m. and file objections if any in the said matter with reasons. Failure on your part to appear on the above said date, orders will be passed as per law without further notice. Sd. Agrl. Income Tax Officer, Hassan. It is relevant to state that once an assessment order has become final, the burden is on the Department to show that it suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record and therefore requires rectification. The notice proposing to make the rectification should furnish sufficient material to enable the Assessee to prefer his objections. In the absence of such particulars, the Assessee could not have made any represenations or filed his objections to the proposed rectification. A notice in the form that was issued to the petitioner is not sufficient to afford a reasonable opportunity to the Assessee to make his representations. In that view, it is unnecesary to go into the other contentions urged by the Assessee. Accordingly, we allow this writ petition, quash the impugned order of rectification dt. 28-5-71 reserving liberty to the respondent to issue a fresh notice in the" manner" indicated in this order and proceed to make the order under S. 37 after "giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner of being heard. It is ordered accordingly. No costs.

--- *** ---

.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document