TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1989 (7) TMI 24
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ial reliefs. It is stated that at all material times the petitioner owned two tea estates, one known as "Radharani Tea and Estate in Dooars" and the other known as "Krishna Kali Tea Estate in Assam". The assessment years concerned in the writ application are 1975-76 to 1977-78. It is alleged that on November 17, 1981, the petitioner received three notices under section 154/155 whereby respondent No. 1 proposed to rectify certain alleged mistakes in the assessment order for the said assessment years and was requested by respondent No. 1 to show cause by November 23, 1981. The nature of the mistakes proposed to be rectified will appear from the notices. Thereafter, by a letter dated December 7, 1981, the petitioner is alleged to have pointed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rred to therein in any previous year, owing to there being no profits or gains chargeable for that previous year, or owing to the profits and/or gains chargeable being less than the allowance, the allowance or part of the allowance to which effect has not been given shall be carried forward subject to the provisions of section 72(2) and section 73(3) of the Act. Elaborating in detail, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition again on the ground that inasmuch as the separate sheets enclosed with the three impugned notices do not bear any signature and/or seal of respondent No. 1 and the same are not authenticated and/or validated by respondent No. 1, the said three separate sheets are of no effect and as such cannot form part of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent from the face of the records. A mistake must be apparent on the face of the records. It must be an obvious, clear and patent mistake. One which is not so apparent and which requires a long and elaborate reasoning and arguments on points on which there may conceivably be two opinions will not be a mistake apparent from the records. The attention of this court has also been drawn to another case, Karimtharuvi Tea Estates Ltd. v. State of Kerala [1963] 48 ITR 83 (SC). It was found by the Supreme Court that the power of the State Legislature to make a law in respect of taxes on agricultural income arising from tea plantations is limited to legislating with respect to the agricultural income determined in accordance with rule 24 of the India....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ncome-tax Act enacted by the State Legislature. Mr. A. C. Moitra, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents, has, however, submitted that the impugned notices have been issued in accordance with law and the steps taken by the respondents are consistent with the provisions of the law and there is nothing for this writ court to interfere in the matter. He has also argued that the Act is a complete code and the Act provides for complete machinery to challenge an order of assessment. Such assessment orders cannot be challenged by the petitioner under article 226 of the Constitution. He draws inspiration from a judgment of the Supreme Court in Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1983] 142 ITR 663. He has also draw....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....force, amend the order under that sub-section in relation to any matter other than the matter which has been so considered and decided. (2) Subject to the other provisions of this section, the authority concerned (a) may make an amendment under sub-section (1) of its own motion, and (b) shall make such amendment for rectifying any such mistake which has been brought to its notice by the assessee, and where the authority concerned is the Appellate Assistant Commissioner by the Income-tax Officer also. (3) An amendment, which has the effect of enhancing an assessment or reducing a refund or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee, shall not be made under this section unless the authority concerned has given notice to the a....