Vacancy remission and rectification powers: debatable house-property issue could not be corrected as an apparent mistake.

Vacancy remission under Section 23(3) was available where the house property remained vacant because the assessee was employed in India and could not occupy it, so the statutory conditions were satisfied and Section 24(1)(ix) could not be used to deny the relief. Rectification under Section 154 was impermissible because the applicability of Sections 23(3) and 24(1)(ix) depended on factual inquiry and raised a debatable issue, which did not amount to a mistake apparent from the record. The appellate relief was therefore sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessee was entitled to vacancy remission in respect of the house property under Section 23(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. (ii) Whether the assessment could be rectified under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 to withdraw that relief and include the annual letting value under Section 24(1)(ix) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issue (i): Whether the assessee was entitled to vacancy remission in respect of the house property under Section 23(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The house remained vacant because the assessee was employed in India and could not occupy the property. On those facts, the statutory conditions for vacancy remission were satisfied, and Section 24(1)(ix) was held inapplicable to deny the relief.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to relief under Section 23(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessment could be rectified under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 to withdraw that relief and include the annual letting value under Section 24(1)(ix) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The question whether Section 23(3) or Section 24(1)(ix) applied required factual investigation and was debatable. Such a controversy did not disclose any mistake apparent from the record, and therefore could not be corrected in rectification proceedings under Section 154.

Conclusion: Rectification under Section 154 was not permissible.

Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded on the applicability of vacancy remission, and the attempted rectification was held unsustainable, resulting in confirmation of the appellate relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A debatable question requiring factual inquiry does not constitute a mistake apparent from the record and cannot be corrected under rectification powers.

---