TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1971 (4) TMI 12
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d evidence that was necessary and/or required by the Income-tax Officer. The petitioner contends that the petitioner disclosed all primary facts and material facts necessary for the proper assessment. Since the assessment year 1952-53 onwards including the assessment year 1963-64 the petitioner had claimed and had been allowed depreciation at the special rate of 10 per cent., inter alia, on the machinery meant for and used in the manufacture of safety razor blades from steel strips under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 and the Income-tax Act, 1961. For the assessment year 1963-64 the petitioner was assessed at a total income of Rs. 42,17,021 under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In so assessing the petitioner the Income-tax Officer had allowed the petitioner depreciation on the said machinery amongst other things at a special rate of 10 per cent. For the said assessment year certain additions were made and certain amounts were disallowed. Being aggrieved by the said assessment order the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner passed an order dated 20th July, 1968, directing the Income-tax Officer t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ovember 6, 1970, and was not inclined to accept the petitioner's contention. Thereupon, the petitioner has moved this court under article 226 of the Constitution challenging the said proceedings. Two points were taken in the petition, firstly, that there was no mistake apparent from the record and as such section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, had no application, and, secondly, that after the assessment order had merged in the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the Income-tax Officer had not retained the jurisdiction to take steps for rectification. At the hearing of this application no argument was advanced before me on the second aspect mentioned hereinbefore and counsel for the petitioner confined his submissions only on the first point. I, therefore, need not consider the second question at all. The short question with which I am concerned in this application, is whether, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the mistake that was proposed to be rectified was a mistake apparent from the record. Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, gives the authorities named in the section powers to rectify any mistake apparent from the record. Therefore, the exercise....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rments made therein and the statements made in the affidavit-in-opposition it is apparent that the mistake that is proposed to be rectified is dependent on the question whether the machinery used for production of safety razor blades can be said to be part of " Iron & Steel Industry " and can come within category (b) mentioned hereinbefore. This requires interpretation of the expression " other machinery and plant ". It was contended that other machinery and plant was intended to cover all machinery used in iron & steel industry apart from the rolling mill rolls. It was urged that otherwise there was no purpose of using the expression " other ". It was further urged that in respect of this machine-rolling mill roll only nil depreciation was allowed for special reasons mentioned in the column of remarks. On the other hand it was urged on behalf of the respondent that the particular items mentioned within the brackets in III(i)(1)(3)(b) of Appendix I mentioned hereinbefore were exhaustive of the other machinery and plant included in the heading " Iron & Steel Industry ". This is surely a question which requires, firstly, an interpretation of the expression " other machinery and plant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....record when it was a glaring, obvious or self-evident mistake. A mistake which had to be discovered by a long drawn process of reasoning or examining arguments on points, where there might conceivably be two opinions, could not be said to be a mistake or error which was apparent from the record. In the case of Volkart Brothers v. Income-tax Officer, Companies Circle IV(4), Bombay, more or less the same position was reiterated by the Bombay High Court. In the case of P. M. Bharucha & Co. v. G. S. Venkatesan, Income-tax Officer, Circle I, Ward A, Bhavnagar, the Gujarat High Court reiterates almost the same position. It, therefore, appears to me that the mistake, if any, in this case is one which cannot be called either obvious or glaring or self-evident. It is a mistake which appears from the record, but it is not apparent. It is a mistake which has to be discovered after interpretation of a certain section and investigation of certain facts. In the premises there cannot be any jurisdiction for the Income-tax Officer to take proceedings under section 154 in view of the facts disclosed. Counsel for the respondent contended that at this stage only a notice had been given and it was pre....