Case Details

Citation(s)
1958 SLG 299 1958 SLD 299 (1958) 34 ITR 540
Madras High Court
WRIT PETITION Nos. 649 AND 650 OF 1957, APRIL 2, 1958
RAJAGOPALAN AND BALAKRISHNA AYYAR, JJ.
T.V. Viswanatha Aiyar, T.V. Ramanathan and S. Narayanaswami for the Petitioner. C.S. Rama Rao Sahib for the
Respondent

P. Kuttikrishna Nair

v.

Law:

Section:

Section 254 read with section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [Corresponding to section 33(4), read with section 35(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922] - Appellate Tribunal - Powers of - Whether Tribunal can rectify mistakes it has made provided mistakes are apparent from record - Held, yes - Whether every body has got a right to draw attention of Tribunal to any mistakes it may have made, but Tribunal is not bound to act on any representation made to it unless representation is that of assessee - Held, yes FACTS The ITO reassessed the income of the petitioner assessee on the basis that certain credits stood in books in favour of assessee's mother, sister and another firm 'A' were income from undisclosed source. On appeal, the AAC confirmed the orders of the ITO so far as they related to the credits in fauour of the petitioners mother and sister, but set them aside so far as they related to the credits in the accounts of 'A'. On appeal, the Tribunal found that the maximum that had been brought in as cash credits was Rs. 22,500. It considered that on this basis all the credits could be explained. In that view it directed accordingly addition to income. However, thereafter, the authorised representative of the Department filed a petition under section 35 before the Tribunal pointing out that the order of the Tribunal required rectification. As the Tribunal had given relief to the assessee for the assessment years on the ground that the maximum credit in any particular year was only Rs. 22,500 but that as a matter of actual fact the correct figure was Rs. 46,500 and that in this view no further relief was due to the assessee. In the result the Tribunal rectified its order in the manner that had been asked for by the Department. The necessary consequential changes were also made. The final result of all this was that the appeal which the petitioner had preferred to the Tribunal was dismissed. Instant writ petition had been filed to quash the order of the Tribunal whereby it purported to rectify the mistakes it had committed in its earlier orders. HELD The second sub-section of section 35 merely states that the Tribunal also may rectify its mistakes 'in like…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492