T. S. BALARAM, INCOME TAX OFFICER, COMPANY CIRCLE IV, BOMBAY vs. M/S. VOLKART BROTHERS, BOMBAY

CIVIL APPEAL No. 1170/1968Supreme Court[1972] 1 S.C.R. 3005 August 1971Bench: 2 JudgesAuthor: K.S. HEGDE, A.N. GROVER S. BALARAM6 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The respondent, M/s. Volkart Brothers, a registered firm, was assessed for the assessment years 1958-59, 1960-61, 1961-62, and 1962-63. The assessments were made on slab rates applicable to registered firms. The partners' shares of income were included in their individual assessments and taxed at maximum rates as they were non-residents. On January 29, 1965, the Income-tax Officer (ITO) issued notices proposing to rectify these assessments under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, stating that the firm had not been charged at the maximum rates under Section 17(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, which was a mistake apparent from the record. The ITO subsequently rectified the assessments by applying Section 17(1). The firm challenged these orders in a writ petition before the High Court, which held that there was no obvious and patent mistake and the ITO was not competent to pass the rectification orders. The ITO appealed this decision.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Tribunal held that a mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and patent mistake, not something requiring a long-drawn process of reasoning or on which there could be two opinions. The applicability of Section 17(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, to a firm depended on whether a firm could be considered a 'person' under that Act. The definition of 'person' in the 1922 Act did not explicitly include a firm, unlike the expanded definition in Section 2(31) of the 1961 Act. The Tribunal found that the question of whether the 1961 definition was merely declaratory or an amendment was debatable and required examination of various provisions and the Act's scheme. Therefore, the Income-tax Officer was not justified in believing there could be no two opinions on the applicability of Section 17(1) to the firm. It was not open to the ITO to delve into the true scope of relevant provisions in a Section 154 proceeding. The Tribunal affirmed that a debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from the record, citing Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde & Ors. v. Millikarjun Bhavanappa Thirumale and Sidhramappa v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay. The ITO was wholly wrong in holding that there was a mistake apparent from the record. The appeal was dismissed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income-tax Officer was within his powers in making the impugned rectifications under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the ground of a mistake apparent from the record. Assessee's Contention: The assessee contended that there was no mistake apparent from the record and disputed the Income-tax Officer's authority to make corrections. The High Court agreed, holding that there was no obvious or patent mistake. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through the Income-tax Officer, contended that the firm had not been charged at the maximum rates under Section 17(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, and this omission constituted a mistake apparent from the record, justifying rectification under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The revenue relied on the argument that Section 17(1) should have been applied to the firm.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 154,Section 17(1),Section 2(31)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

T. S. BALARAM, INCOME TAX OFFICER, COI\fP~NY CIRCLE IV, BOMBAY v. MJS. VOLKA:JtT BROTHERS, BOMBAY August 5, 1971 [K. s. HEGJ?E AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.] lncome tax Act~ ·t961, s. 154-Mistake apparent from tl1<· re,·ord must be a patew mistake on which there can be no two opinions-Whether s. 17(1) of Jncome-tax Act, 1922 applied to firm ... is not a question on which rher.e can be no two opinions. ll. ('

The respondent tlnn \\as duly registered under the J nco me-tax Act. 1922 as well as the lncome tax Act, 1961. In the original asses~­ ments of the firm fo~ the years 19.58-59, 1960-61, 1961-62 and 1962-63 assessments were made on the sJab rates prescribed under the respective Finance Acts applicable to registered firms.

In the individual asses~­ ments of the partners, their re~pective shares in the income of the firm \\ere included and asses~ed at the maximum rates since their assessmcm~ l> were made in the status of non-resident.

On February 1, · 1965 the re:.· pondcnt firm was served wi1h notices dated January 29, 1965 by th(! Income-tax Officer intimating to it that in its assessments for the fouf ~cars in question there were mi~takes apparent from the rec

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 154

All 8,554 judgments and leading authorities on Section 154 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →