2003 (3) TMI 73

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Commissioner of Income-tax, annexure G, dated March 12, 1999. The petitioner-assessee filed his return for the assessment year 1994-95 declaring the income at Rs. 41,550. He claimed depreciation on motor vehicle in terms of section 32(1) of the Act. It was accepted. Even in the regular assessment after verification of the books of account, statement and other particulars filed by the petitioner....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....erification depreciation was accepted and the same is being withdrawn on the ground of a mistake in terms of section 154 which according to the petitioner is not available to the Department. The petitioner finds fault with both the orders impugned in the writ petition. Per contra, learned standing counsel for the Department, would say that no specific plea as such has been taken in the case on ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....isional authority accepted the said finding. Let me see as to whether the discretion exercised by the respondent is correct or not in the given set of facts. From a reading of the notice it is clear that the respondents are trying to rectify a mistake under section 154. The same was objected to. The Income-tax Officer says that there were mistakes apparent on the face of the record. The revision f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed to a 'mistake' in terms of a statute (section 154), as has been done in the case on hand. Mistake has been explained by the courts in the following judgments. (a) T. S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Brothers [1971] 82 ITR 50 (SC); and (b) CIT v. South India Bank Ltd. [2001] 249 ITR 304 (SC). In the first case, in T.S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Brothers [1971] 82 ITR 50, the Supreme Court has r....