SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1971 Supreme(Cal) 108

HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
SABYASACHI MUKHERJI
HARBANS LAL MALHOTRA AND SONS PRIVATE LTD. - Appellant
Versus
INCOME-TAX OFFICER, "C" WARD - Respondent
Matter 597  Of  1970
Decided On : APRIL 23, 1971

Advocates Appeared:
P.K.SENGUPTA, S.DUTT, S.Ghosh

A mistake that requires interpretation of provisions and investigation of facts, rather than being obvious or self-evident, does not constitute a mistake apparent from the record and cannot be rectified under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Headnote:

INCOME TAX - Rectification of mistake - Mistake apparent from the record - Interpretation of provision - Jurisdiction of Income-tax Officer - Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a company engaged in the manufacture and sale of safety razor blades, steel files, bandsaws, small tools, and other articles, challenged the rectification proceedings initiated by the Income-tax Officer under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1963-64. The petitioner claimed depreciation on machinery used for the production of safety razor blades at a special rate of 10%, which was allowed by the Income-tax Officer during the initial assessment. However, a notice was issued to the petitioner proposing rectification of the assessment on the ground that the depreciation should have been allowed at the general rate of 7%.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the mistake proposed to be rectified, which involved the interpretation of the term "other machinery and plant" in Appendix I of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, to determine whether the petitioner's machinery qualified for the special depreciation rate, was not a mistake apparent from the record. The court found that the mistake required investigation of facts and interpretation of law, and thus could not be rectified under Section 154.

Issues: 1. Whether the mistake proposed to be rectified was a mistake apparent from the record, allowing for rectification under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961? 2. Whether the interpretation of the term "other machinery and plant" in Appendix I of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, to determine the applicable depreciation rate, constituted a mistake apparent from the record?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Maharana Mills (Private) Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer, Porbandar, which held that a mistake under Section 154 should be apparent from the record and not require an argument or investigation to discover. 2. The court also referred to various High Court judgments, including National Rayon Corporation Ltd. v. G. R. Bahmani, Income-tax Officer, Volkart Brothers v. Income-tax Officer, Companies Circle IV (4), Bombay, and P. M. Bharucha and Co. v. G. S. Venkatesan, Income-tax Officer, which reiterated that a mistake apparent from the record should be glaring, obvious, or self-evident, and not require a process of reasoning or examination of arguments.

Final Decision: The court quashed the rectification proceedings initiated by the Income-tax Officer and restrained the respondents from taking further steps pursuant to the notice issued under Section 154. A writ of certiorari and a writ of mandamus were issued accordingly.

SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the rectification proceedings under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. For the assessment year 1963-64, the petitioner filed its return of income along with and supported by its audited profit and loss account, balance-sheet, depreciation statement and various other statements. The petitioner is a company and carries on business of manufacture and sale of safety razor blades, steel files, bandsaws, small tools and other articles. The petitioner alleges that during the course of the said assessment proceedings for the said assessment year before the Income-tax Officer the petitioner produced and/or caused to be produced various books of accounts, papers and other documents and had given various explanations, information and evidence that was necessary and/or required by the Income-tax Officer. The petitioner contends that the petitioner disclosed all primary facts and material facts necessary for the proper assessment. Since the assessment year 1952-53 onwards including the assessment year 1963-64 the petitioner had claimed and had been allowed depreciation at the special rate of 10 per cent. , inter alia, on the machinery meant for and used in the manufacture of safety razor blades from steel strips under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922^ and the Income-tax Act, 1961. For the assessment year 1963-64 the petitioner was assessed at a total income of Rs. 42,17,021 under Section 143 (3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In so assessing the petitioner the Income-tax Officer had allowed the petitioner depreciation on the said machinery amongst other things at a special rate of 10 per cent. For the said assessment year certain additions were made and certain amounts were disallowed. Being aggrieved by the said assessment order the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner passed an order dated 20th July, 1968, directing the Income-tax Officer to revise the assessment in accordance with the directions given by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. On the 20th October, 1970, the Income-tax Officer served upon the petitioner a notice issued under Section 154/155 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1963-64 wherein it was stated that the said assessment required rectification as there was a mistake apparent from the record. The nature of the mistake proposed to be rectified was " mistake in computation of depreciation ". It has been stated by the petitioner in its petition that on 27th October, the petitioner appeared before the Income-tax Officer and the said officer informed the petitioner that the allowance of special depreciation on machinery for manufacture of safety razor blades at the rate of 10 per cent, was incorrect and excessive and was done inadvertently and erroneously inasmuch as the said machinery was entitled to the allowance of depreciation at the general rate of 7 per cent. The petitioner by its letter dated 27th October, 1970, recorded the said fact and stated that the notice did not disclose necessary particulars of the mistakes. The petitioner further stated that the petitioner was allowed depreciation at the special rate of 10 per cent, inasmuch as the manufacture of safety razor blades from steel strips was an " iron and steel industry". The petitioner stated that according to item III (ii) I (3) (b) of Appendix I of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, machinery and plant used in an " iron and steel industry " was entitled to special depreciation allowance at the rate of 10 per cent, and not at the general rate of 7 per cent. The petitioner contended that there was no mistake apparent from the record in the computation of depreciation relating to the relevant assessment year. The petitioner submitted in any event the question whether on the aforesaid plant and machinery depreciation at the special rate of 10 per cent, should be allowed





Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top