TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (3) TMI 80
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en by respondent No. 1 is permissible within the scope and purview of section 154 of the said Act or not. The notice issued under the aforesaid section is based on the following grounds as indicated in the impugned notice: "In this case the 'a' Co., claimed depreciation allowance of Rs. 38.09 lakhs for the period from January 1,1993 to March 31,1993, for the fixed assets of Messrs. Tea Estates of India Limited and the same was allowed. Moreover, Messrs. Tea Estates of India Limited claimed depreciation of Rs. 2,30,90,740 for April 1, 1992 to December 31, 1992 and the same was allowed. As per Explanation 2 to section 43(6) this allowance to Messrs. Brooke Bond Lipton India Limited is irregular. Hence, there was excess allowance of depr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uring the relevant period which was less than 180 days, 50 per cent, of the normal rate of depreciation had been claimed by Brooke Bond India Limited and allowed by the Assessing Officer. Thereafter on November 18, 1998, the impugned notice was issued. Dr. Pal appearing for the petitioner submits that the Assessing Officer allowed depreciation applying the correct position of law then prevailing during the relevant previous year corresponding to the assessment years as mentioned in the impugned notice in favour of Tea Estate India Limited as well as Brooke Bond India Limited. He submits the subsequently, of course, there has been a change of law relating to the allowance of the depreciation on the block assets. The Explanation referred t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on and thus it has been submitted to the jurisdiction of the said authority. Whether the authority concerned has jurisdiction or not can be and indeed has been decided by respondent No. 1. The contention of the writ petitioner has not been accepted by respondent No. 1 and the appropriate order has been passed. This court, therefore, should not interfere with the notice nor the order passed pursuant thereto under section 154 of the said Act. The order passed by respondent No. 1 can be challenged by appropriate proceedings as provided under the statute itself. After the final order has been passed the challenge against the notice has lost its force. It will appear from the impugned assessment order that the Assessing Officer earlier has pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arent from the record an income-tax authority referred to section 116 may,-" Therefore, the mistake must be apparent from the records, meaning thereby no external help either on fact or in law is required to detect such mistake. The mistake shall be so obvious that can easily be corrected, to wit arithmetical mistake, wrong quotation of section, etc. A large number of decisions have been cited and in fact it has been time and again explained with some extent of repetition by the judicial authorities. In the case of Volkart Brothers [1971] 82 ITR 50 (SC) the scope of section 154 was explained and interpreted as follows: "A mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....id affidavit it has been stated specifically that the petitioner has been given depreciation allowance by misinterpreting the law. Thus, it is clear that on the basis of the opinion of respondent No. 1 the 12 decision of the Assessing Officer is wrong in the eye of law as such the same is sought to be rectified. Whether interpretation of the provision of law is right or wrong is per se a debatable issue. This issue cannot be resolved by the official having co-ordinate jurisdiction under section 154 of the said Act as the same cannot be termed to be apparent from the record. Going by the aforesaid narration of facts and discussion I think respondent No. 1 has invoked the power illegally on the given facts. Respondent No. 2 ought not to....