1987 (10) TMI 383

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2. The facts necessary for answering the aforesaid question are that in the assessment proceedings, the assessee had claimed exemption under Section 54 of the Act on the sale of a house at Bombay. This claim of the assessee was rejected by the Tribunal by its order passed in second appeal on December 8, 1981. The Tribunal, in its order dated December 8, 1981, held that the house in question at Bombay was owned by a group of two owners which constituted an artificial juridical person. It also held that a considerable portion of the property in question was in the form of a vacant plot and there was no evidentiary value on record to show that the floor area in the assessee's self-occupation exceeded the floor area in the occupation of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l gain. 4. On an application being made by the Department, the Tribunal referred the aforementioned question to this court for its opinion. The short question which, therefore, falls for our consideration in the instant case is whether the deletion of the findings referred to above by the Tribunal from its order dated December 8, 1981, and substituting those findings by the fresh findings mentioned above amounted to a review or to a rectification of a mistake as contemplated by Section 254(2) of the Act, In this connection, what is significant to be noted is that the Income-tax Officer as well as the Commissioner of Income-tax had recorded a finding that after the partition in the family in 1971, the assessee was holding the property in ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ribunal had committed a mistake apparent from the record in recording the findings in its order dated December 8, 1981, which were subsequently deleted and substituted by different findings as stated above. 5. Section 254(2) of the Act, inter alia, provides that the Appellate Tribunal may, at any time within four years from the date of the order, with a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record, amend any order passed by it under Sub-section (1), and shall make such amendment if the mistake is brought to its notice by the assessee or the Income-tax Officer. In the instant case, as indicated above, a mistake apparent from the record had been committed by the Tribunal. This mistake was brought to its notice within four years ....