Rectification of reassessment orders was upheld as timely, and revision under section 263 failed for lack of error and prejudice.

Rectification under section 154 was held valid where it corrected a patent omission in reassessment orders under section 147, and limitation was computed with reference to the reassessment orders rather than the original assessments. The omission to allow consequential depreciation after withdrawal of the repairs allowance was treated as a mistake apparent from the record, so the rectification was within time and legally sustainable. The Commissioner's revision under section 263 also failed because the rectification merely aligned the assessment with the proper tax treatment of income from composite letting and did not make the order erroneous or prejudicial to the Revenue. The rectification orders were therefore sustained and the revision was rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the rectification orders under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, made in relation to the reassessment orders, were within limitation and valid on the facts. (ii) Whether the Commissioner was justified in invoking section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the ground that the rectification orders were erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue.

Issue (i): Whether the rectification orders under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, made in relation to the reassessment orders, were within limitation and valid on the facts.

Analysis: The rectification was not directed against the original assessment orders, but against the reassessment orders passed under section 147. On the facts, the reassessments had altered the treatment of the cinema income on the footing of a composite letting, and the omission to grant depreciation after withdrawing the repairs allowance constituted a patent mistake in those reassessment orders. The limitation therefore had to be computed with reference to the reassessment orders and not the original assessments.

Conclusion: The rectification orders were valid and within time, and this issue was answered in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the Commissioner was justified in invoking section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the ground that the rectification orders were erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue.

Analysis: The orders under section 154 merely corrected the reassessment orders by allowing consequential depreciation after the withdrawal of the repairs allowance. The income was treated as falling under the residuary source on the basis of composite letting, and the rectification did not produce any legal error or prejudice to the Revenue. Since the underlying adjustment was consistent with the applicable tax treatment, the Commissioner had no basis to revise the orders under section 263.

Conclusion: The Commissioner was not justified in cancelling the rectification orders under section 263, and this issue was answered in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The questions referred were answered in the affirmative for the assessee, sustaining the validity of the rectification orders and rejecting the revisionary interference by the Commissioner.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a reassessment order contains a patent omission consequential to the treatment of income under the proper head, rectification under section 154 may be made with reference to the reassessment order within limitation, and revision under section 263 is unavailable unless the order is both erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue.

---