TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the Commissioner was justified in exercising revisional jurisdiction against the Wealth-tax Officer's rectification order passed under section 35 of the Wealth-tax Act; (ii) Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the rectification order under section 35 was not sustainable because there was no mistake apparent from the record.
Issue (i): Whether the Commissioner was justified in exercising revisional jurisdiction against the Wealth-tax Officer's rectification order passed under section 35 of the Wealth-tax Act.
Analysis: The rectification order had been made by following a single-judge decision which had already been overruled by a Division Bench before the rectification order was passed. In those circumstances, the Commissioner was entitled to treat the rectification order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue and to invoke revisional powers.
Conclusion: The Commissioner's exercise of revisional jurisdiction was upheld.
Issue (ii): Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the rectification order under section 35 was not sustainable because there was no mistake apparent from the record.
Analysis: Rectification under section 35 is confined to a mistake apparent from the record. An order founded on a precedent that had already been overruled could not be sustained as a valid rectification, and the Tribunal was correct in holding that the Wealth-tax Officer had no basis to alter the original valuation on that footing.
Conclusion: The Tribunal's view that the rectification order was unsustainable was affirmed.
Final Conclusion: No reference was called for on any of the questions, and the assessee's petition failed.
Ratio Decidendi: Rectification cannot be sustained where it is based on a precedent that has already been overruled, and a revision against such an erroneous rectification order is permissible.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
