TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1985 (8) TMI 29
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The reference applications have arisen out of the following facts : The assessee-respondent was assessed for the aforesaid two assessment years under the Wealth-tax Act by the Wealth-tax Officer, Jodhpur, on February 6, 1971. The Wealth-tax Officer did not include the whole of the jewellery and ornaments in the total wealth of the assessee in view of the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in CWT v. Arundhati Balkrishna [1970] 77 ITR 505. Subsequently, section 5(1)(viii) of the Wealth-tax Act was amended by the Finance (No. 2) Act of 1971, with retrospective effect from April 1, 1963. The effect of the amendment was that exemption in regard to jewellery and ornaments for personal use ceased and the value of the jewellery....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reference to this court on the following question of law: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Incometax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the exemption granted in respect of jewellery and ornaments to the assessee at the time of original assessment did not disclose any mistake apparent from the record which can be rectified under section 35 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ?" After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that no question of law arises in view of the fact that the original assessment does not disclose any mistake apparent from the record which can be rectified under section 35 of the Wealth-tax Act. The Tribunal was right in placing reliance on the decision ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....record'. The plain meaning of the word 'apparent' is that it must be something which appears to be so ex facie and is incapable of argument or debate. The mistake can be regarded as 'apparent' only when it is 'glaring, obvious or self-evident mistake'. It must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may conceivably be two opinions. As the applicability of the amending provision to the completed assessment was itself a debatable point, it must be held that there was no mistake apparent from the record and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to rectify the original order dated June 26, 1970. " The matter also came up befor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Raj.) decided on April 23, 1985. Relying on the decision of T S. Balaram's case [1971] 82 ITR 50 (SC), it was observed that in order to attract the application of section 154 of the Income-tax Act, it must be a case of a mistake and that mistake must be apparent on the record. In that case, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, with whom the Appellate Tribunal agreed, has stated that the case of the assessee is governed by Emerald & Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1959] 36 ITR 257 (SC), whereas the successor-Income-tax Officer has rectified the so-called mistake in respect of the capital gain on the basis of the principles laid down in CIT v. Dalmia Investment Co. [1964] 52 ITR 567. It was observed that no substantial question of law arose after the order....