Law:

Section:

Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Rectification of mistakes - Apparent from records - Assessment year 1994-95 - Whether allowing of depreciation after verification of books of account cannot be equated with a mistake in terms of a statute so as to invoke section 154 - Held, yes CASES REFERRED TO T.S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Bros. [1971] 82 ITR 50 (SC) [Para 6], CIT v. South India Bank Ltd. [2001] 249 ITR 304/ 116 Taxman 364 (SC) [Para 6] and M.D. Narayan v. Agricultural ITO [1974] 95 ITR 452 (Mys.) [Para 6]. S. Parthasarathi for the Petitioner. Indrakumar for the Respondent. ORDER 1. Petitioner in this petition is challenging an order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax Annexure-G dated 12-3-1999. 2. Petitioner assessee filed his returns 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, the claim was allowed in terms of the order dated 17-4-1995. Thereafter a notice under section 154 was issued by the first respondent proposing to rectify the assessment made under section 143(3) of the Act in respect of depreciation. Objections were filed. Thereafter an order was passed withdrawing the depreciation granted to the petitioner. A representation was filed and the petitioner was unsuccessful in filing the representation. An order in terms of Annexure-G was passed. Annexure-G is challenged in this petition. 3. Sri Sarangan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would say that the jurisdiction in terms of section 154 is available to correct a mistake and not for reassessing the entire case as has been done in the case on hand. Petitioner says that after verification depreciation was accepted and the same is being withdrawn on the ground of a mistake in terms of section 154 which according to the petitioner is not available to the department. Petitioner finds fault with both the orders impugned in the writ petition. 4. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for the Department would say that no specific…

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