SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal relates to the assessment for the assessment year 1966-67 under the Income-tax Act, 1961. On the 16th of February, 1967, the original assessment was made under Section 143 (3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In the said assessment tax was computed as payable by the petitioner-company on the basis of 25% of the dividend income of Rs. 16,01,769 and the taxable figure arrived at was Rs. 4,00,442'26. After giving the petitioner credit for the tax deducted at source on this account the tax liability of the petitioner was nil on this amount. Thereafter, on the 26th December, 1967, supplementary assessment was made under Section 143 (3) read with Section 147 (a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to include the capital gains arising as a result of the sale of 2,14,174 shares of Rs. 10 each to Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. On the 15th of February, 1968, an order was passed under Section 154 of the Act on the ground that there was a mistake in the calculation of tax. In the said order in recomputing the tax, the tax on dividend income was calculated at 25% as was made in the original assessment. Thereafter, on the 5th of January, 1970, another Income-tax Officer made an order under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the ground that there was some mistake in computation of the capital gains. While computing the tax he also followed the same computation of tax on the dividend income, i. e. , at 25% as was done in the original assessment. On the 16th of January, 1970, there was a subsequent rectification order under Section 154 of the Income-Act, 1961, on the ground that there was a mistake in tax calculation. But in the said order also the tax on the dividend income was computed at 25% as was the case in the original assessment. On the 3rd of February, 1971, a notice was issued under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the ground that there was an error in the calculation of tax on the dividend and, therefore, rectification under Section 154 was proposed. The company thereupon moved this application under Article 226 of the Constitution on the ground that there was no mistake as contemplated under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and obtained a rule nisi. The rule came up for hearing before T. K. Basu J. and by a judgment delivered and order passed on the 2nd of February, 1973, the learned judge made the rule absolute and quashed the said notice and the proceedings thereunder. This appeal arises out of the aforesaid judgment of T. K. Basu J. delivered on the 2nd of February, 1973.

( 2 ) THE only question with which we are concerned in this case is whether Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has correctly been invoked in this case. Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the previous Section 35 of the old Act of 1922 provide for rectification of mistake apparent from the record. The scope and ambit of the sections have been the subject-matter of several decisions and it has been held that a mistake which is not obvious or which requires investigation or in respect of which two different views are possible is not a mistake covered or contemplated by Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. We may refer to the decisions in the cases of T. S. Balaram v. Volkart Brothers, Income-lax Officer v. India Foils Ltd. , and of Harbans Lal Malhotra and Sons Private Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer. Therefore, in order to come within the ambit of the section, it is necessary that the mistake must be obvious, patent and self-evident and a mistake on which conceivably there can be two opinions cannot be rectified by virtue of Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The question in the instant case is whether the mistake sought to be rectified comes within the ambit of Section 154 of the Act. As mentioned hereinbefore in the computation of tax made in respect of the dividend income in the original assessment as well as in the rectified assessment, tax on the dividend income of Rs. 16,01,769 h

Click Here to Read the rest of this document