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 the Income-tax Officer could invoke section 35 to rectify the assessment by withdrawing excess super-tax rebate on the ground that the rebate had been wrongly allowed under the relevant Finance Acts, and whether such omission constituted a mistake apparent from the record.
Analysis: The record showed that the Income-tax Officer had failed to give effect to the relevant provisions governing the super-tax rebate under the Finance Acts of 1958 and 1959. The challenge based on alleged invalidity of those provisions was rejected because the provision relied upon from the Finance Act, 1951, was materially different and no real comparison could be drawn. The existence of a debatable question was not established, and nothing suggested that the rectification depended on material outside the record. The omission to apply the relevant provisions was therefore an obvious error fit for rectification under section 35.
Conclusion: The rectification was valid and the objection failed.
Ratio Decidendi: A failure to apply the relevant statutory provision to the assessment record, where the error is obvious and not a debatable point of law, constitutes a mistake apparent from the record and can be corrected in rectification proceedings.