Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether an assessment could be rectified under Section 22 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 to levy tax on purchases from unregistered dealers where some additions rested on an admitted omission and another addition depended on a debatable explanation.
Analysis: The scope of rectification under Section 22 is confined to correcting mistakes apparent from the record; a doubtful or debatable question, or one requiring elaborate reasoning, cannot be examined in rectification proceedings. On the facts, the additions relating to leather and cotton thread were sustained because the assessee's own books disclosed the purchases and no plausible dispute survived on those items, so the omission was treated as an apparent mistake. In contrast, the addition relating to cotton could not be sustained in rectification because the assessee had furnished a specific explanation that the cotton had suffered tax in the hands of a registered dealer, and that explanation was neither shown to be patently false nor capable of rejection without evidence.
Conclusion: Rectification was valid for the additions concerning leather and cotton thread, but not for the addition concerning cotton; the assessee succeeded only to that extent.
Ratio Decidendi: A mistake can be rectified under Section 22 only when it is apparent from the record, and an issue that becomes debatable on the assessee's explanation cannot be brought within rectification.