CIT v. South Indian Bank Ltd.

249 ITR 304Supreme Court of India2001#2710 most cited

What is CIT v. South Indian Bank Ltd. authority for?

The Supreme Court clarifies that the power of rectification under Section 254(2) is limited to correcting mistakes apparent from the record and does not allow for re-adjudication of debatable issues.

43

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Also referred to as

CIT v. South Indian Bank Ltd. · 249 ITR 304 · section 254(2) · section 154 · rectification · mistake apparent from record · debatable issues · Appellate Tribunal power to rectify · scope of rectification · Supreme Court 2001 judgment

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. South Indian Bank Ltd.

MARBLE KINGDOM INDIA PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ITO,WARD-TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 67/JODH/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur18 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteassessment Year : 2013-14 Marble Kingdom India Private Income Tax Officer, 365, Lodha Complex, Shashtri Vs Ward-Tds, Circle, Udaipur Udaipur Pan: Jdhm06807D Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Ms. Prerana Choudhary-Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 17.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18.08.2023 Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi) Under Section 250 Of Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y. 2013-14 Emanating From Order Under Section 154 Of The Income Tax Act Dated 31.12.2019 Passed By Income Tax Officer (Tds), Udaipur. 2. The Assessee Has Filed An Application Under Section 154 Of The Act Against The Order Under Section 200A. Assessee Requested The Ito To Rectify The Levy Of Fee Charged Under Section 234E Of The Act. The Ld. Ito Rejected The Application On The Ground That It Is Not A Mistake Apparent From Record As It Is A Debatable Issue. The Relevant Paragraph Of The Order Is Reproduced Here As Under:- Marble Kingdom India Pvt. Ltd. “3. On-Going Through The Record It Is Noticed That It Is Not A Mistake Apparent On Record & Issue Is Debatable & Also Not Covered U/S 154 Of The Act. Thus The Contention Of The Deductor/Assessee Is Not Tenable Because The Hon'Ble Jurisdictional Rajasthan High Court Jaipur Has Dismissed The Appeals In The Case Of M/S Dundlod Shikdhan Sansthan & Anr. V/S Union Of India & Ors. In D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8672/2014 Dated 28.07.2015 On This Issue. Hence Considering The Facts Of The Case & Decision Of Jurisdictional Rajasthan High Court The Application Filed By The Assessee U/S 154 Is Rejected Accordingly.”

Section 154Section 200ASection 23Section 234ESection 250

…batable issue as discussed in earlier para. It is not a clear cut mistake apparent from record. Therefore, the order under section 200A cannot be rectified under section 154 of the Act. 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. South India Bank Ltd 249 ITR 304 (SC) has held as under:- 8 Marble Kingdom India Pvt. Ltd. “4. Having regard to the difference of opinion among the learned Judges of the High Court on the principal question, it is clear that there was a debatable question and error on the face of the record which could not (sic) be corrected by invocation of the provisions of section 154. On th…

Showing 120 of 43 · Page 1 of 3

CIT v. South Indian Bank Ltd. (249 ITR 304) — Cited in 43 Judgments | BharatTax