https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19016 The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, quashing the notice issued under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It held that the alleged mistake regarding the absence of investment with a cooperative bank was not apparent on the face of the record, emphasizing that rectification cannot be used to ratify a decision or conduct a fresh inquiry. The court concluded that the assessing authority wrongly assumed jurisdiction for rectification, and the conditions necessary for invoking section 154 were not met. The petition was allowed, and no costs were imposed on either party. en-us Fri, 21 Jul 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 03 Nov 2009 13:44:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19016 The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, quashing the notice issued under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It held that the alleged mistake regarding the absence of investment with a cooperative bank was not apparent on the face of the record, emphasizing that rectification cannot be used to ratify a decision or conduct a fresh inquiry. The court concluded that the assessing authority wrongly assumed jurisdiction for rectification, and the conditions necessary for invoking section 154 were not met. The petition was allowed, and no costs were imposed on either party. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 21 Jul 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19016