Assessment quantification and binding precedent errors can justify appeal and rectification against dividend distribution tax demand.

Quantification of dividend distribution tax and interest may form part of an assessment order even when worked out on a separate sheet, so the resulting demand can be challenged in appeal. The article also states that failure to consider binding Supreme Court precedent on this point constitutes a mistake apparent from the record, justifying rectification. On that basis, the earlier dismissal was rectified and the matter was remitted for verification of the assessee's claim and consequential relief if correct.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the quantification of dividend distribution tax and interest could be treated as part of the assessment order and challenged in appeal. (ii) Whether non-consideration of binding Supreme Court decisions constituted a mistake apparent from the record warranting rectification.

Issue (i): Whether the quantification of dividend distribution tax and interest could be treated as part of the assessment order and challenged in appeal.

Analysis: The order recorded that computation of tax and interest liability may form part of an assessment even if reflected on a separate sheet and approved by the Assessing Officer later. On that basis, the grievance against demand raised under the relevant charging and interest provisions was held to be capable of appellate challenge.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether non-consideration of binding Supreme Court decisions constituted a mistake apparent from the record warranting rectification.

Analysis: The order held that failure to follow or consider binding Supreme Court precedent on the scope of assessment orders and the assessee's right to challenge quantified demand amounted to a mistake apparent from the record. That error justified exercise of rectification powers and restoration of the matter for verification of the assessee's claim.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The earlier dismissal order was rectified, and the matter was sent back for verification and consequential relief if the assessee's claim was found correct.

Ratio Decidendi: Non-consideration of binding Supreme Court authority on a material legal issue, and an erroneous view that quantified tax demand cannot be questioned because it did not arise from the assessment order, constitute a mistake apparent from the record amenable to rectification.

---