T.S. Balaram ITO v. Volkart Bros.

82 ITR 50Supreme Court of India1971#194 most cited

What is T.S. Balaram ITO v. Volkart Bros. authority for?

A mistake apparent from the record under Section 154 must be an obvious and patent error, not one that requires a long and elaborate process of reasoning or where two opinions are conceivable. Rectification under Section 154 is not permissible for re-examining issues already considered or requiring detailed re-computation.

382

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

T.S. Balaram v. Volkart Bros. · 82 ITR 50 · Section 154 · mistake apparent from record · rectification · obvious and patent mistake · change of opinion · scope of rectification · long drawn reasoning

Sections most often in play

Section 154Section 143(3)Section 250Section 153ASection 69Section 263Section 245D(4)Section 245D(6B)

Issues it is cited on

mistake apparent from recordrectification u/s 154mistake apparent on recordsection 154change of opinionregular assessmentsection 15section 24section 234section 23income-tax officerprevious year

Judgments citing T.S. Balaram ITO v. Volkart Bros.

Renu Khunteta, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward3(2), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 220/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Sh. H. M. Singhvi (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 801ASection 80I

…e contentions of the appellate are not tenable. Looking the facts narrated above it a change of opinion and the matter is debatable which cannot be rectified in view of the following decisions.:- 1. T.S. Balaram, Income Tax Officer v. Volkart Brothers & Ors. (82 ITR 50 (SC)).Copy enclosed. (See P.B. Pg. No. 24-27) Ground No. 2 The AO has wrongly taken the adjusted total income of Rs. 2220998/-(total assessed income Rs. 383014 plus deduction of Rs. 1837984/- u/s 801A) after considering the disallowance of Rs. 410898/- made u/s 143(3) whereas the adjusted total income as per Sec. 115JC (2) should be Rs. 1837984/-(R…

Shri Gopal Soni, Bikaner vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Bikaner

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 383/JODH/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur11 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteshri Gopal Soni Prop Vs. The Acit, Circle – 1 Durga Silver Home Bikaner. Katla Chowk Nokha Rajasthan. Bikaner-334803, Rajasthan. Pan/Gir No. : Aemps5097M Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Nidhi Nair, Jcit -Dr Date Of Hearing 10.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Bikaner Passed U/S 154 & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Nair, JCIT -DR
Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(1)Section 154Section 234CSection 69

…isions of the Income-tax Act. The term Shiv Ratan Soni Vs ACIT & 2 Ors: 'mistake apparent from record" is by now well understood with the help of the numerous Court decisions including the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Balaram v. Volkart Bros., 82 ITR 50. An order passed in situation in respect of which two views are possible, cannot be said to be the case of a 'mistake apparent from the record". Such an order cannot be the subject matter of rectification. Reliance was also placed by the Revenue on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M. K. Venkatachalam, ITO v. Bombay Dyeing and Manuf…

Bhuneshwar Prasad Sahu, Baloda Bazar, Raipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Jao Income Tax Officer, Bhatapara

ITA 64/RPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 64/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Bhuneshwar Prasad Sahu Main Road, Raseda, Baloda Bazar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Batps7721N .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cpc, Jao-Income Tax Officer, Bhatapara ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…ent, apparent and obvious from record that a recourse can be sought for rectification of the same u/s.154 of the Act. Our aforesaid view is supported by the landmark judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of T.S. Balaram ITO vs. Volkart Bros (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court after deliberating at length on the scope and gamut of Section 154 of the Act had observed as under: “From what has been said above, it is clear that the question whether S.17(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 was applicable to the case of the first respondent is not free from doubt. Therefore the Income-ta…

Regal Industries, Mumbai vs. DCIT 19(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1737/MUM/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri V.H. JariwalaFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)

…whether the interest income is income from other sources is a debatable issue and cannot be said to be covered under the ambit of the expression “mistake apparent from the record”. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.S. Balram, ITO v/s Volkart Brothers, [1971] 82 ITR 50 (SC) held that for initiating proceedings under section 154 of the Act, the mistake apparent from record 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. In view of the above, as is evident from the facts available on recor…

Idbi Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Ltu Circle-1, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 715/MUM/2023[1994-95]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Aug 2023AY 1994-95

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal & Idbi Bank Limited, 22Nd Floor, Idbi Tower, Wtc Complex, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 005 ...... Appellant Vs. Acit/Dcit-Ltu, 29Th Floor, Centre No.1, World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 005 Pan – Aabci8842G ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri C. Naresh, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri K. C. Selvamani, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 154(7)Section 244ASection 250

…table issue and is accordingly, not a mistake apparent from records which can be rectified in the order u/s. 154 of the Act. Reliance for this view IDBI Bank Ltd. is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T. S. Balaram Vs Volkart Bros (82 ITR 50) and other decisions. 4. In view of above, it can be said with certainty that order rectified u/s. 154 of the Act was passed on 31.03.2016 only, may be in continuity to earlier order passed u/s. 155(7) of the Act. But latest order was not under challenge by the assessee and duly accepted at that time. As per the jurisprudence latest order in conti…

M/S. Sarda Gums & Chemicals, Pali vs. ACIT, Circle1- Pali, Pali

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 115/JODH/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur03 Aug 2023AY 2012-13
Section 143(3)Section 154

…surplus distributed to the partners is liable for taxation in the hands of the firm. The AO only presumed that such transfer/ distribution is required to be considered as business income of the assessee. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of ITO Vs. Volkart Bros. 82 ITR 50 has held that “a mistake apparent on record 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. A decision on a debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from record.” Therefore in the absence of any statutory provision…

M/S Navratna Jewellers & Co., Gokak vs. ACIT, Circle - 1, Gokak

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 301/PAN/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji18 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri A.S. PatilFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth
Section 154Section 234B

…1 ITA.No.301/PAN./2019 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH : PANAJI [THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING] BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.301/PAN./2019 Assessment Year 2014-2015 M/s. Navratna Jewellers & The ACIT, Circle-1, Co. CTS No.2688, Raviwar- Feroz Khimjibhai Peth, Gokak. Karnataka. vs., Commercial Complex, Dr. PIN – 591 307 B.R. Ambedkar Road, PAN AAHFN2414IN Belgaum. Karnataka. TAN BLRN054576 PIN – 590 001 (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri A.S. Patil For Revenue : Shri N. Shrikanth Date of Hearing : 14.07.2023 Date of Pron…

Sh. Sanjay Gupta, Prop. M/S Hardik Jewellers, in Front of Arya Samaj Mandir, Bajaja Bazar, Alwar vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Alwar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 292/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 154

…e it is submitted that unaccounted stock found during survey is related to the business and thus assessable as business income under normal provisions of the Act and not u/s 115BBE. Otherwise also, Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of ITO Vs. Volkart Bros. [1971] 82 ITR 50 has held that a mistake apparent from record 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 options. A decision on a debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from the record. In view of above, order passed by AO u/s 154 be…

Drishti Lifesaving Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Centralised Processing Centre, Bengaluru

In the result, all the grounds of appeal of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1076/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm Drishti Lifesaving Pvt. Ltd. Top Floor, Mehta, Mahal, Cpc, 15, Mathew Road, Vs. Benaluru-560600 Opera House, Mumbai-400 004 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aafcd0528C

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, &For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…preme Court decision is to be applied in the context in which it was rendered. His claim was further that the debatable issue cannot be rectified. For this proposition he relied on the decision of the honorable Supreme Court in case of ITO versus Wolkart Bros 82 ITR 50. Without prejudice to the above contention he submitted that for some of the months the assessee has deposited the amount of PF/ESIC within the due date , if it is reckoned from the date of the payment of the wages. Therefore, the appellant has not utilized the amounts deducted is in a trust for any other purposes, hence the ratio of the Supreme Co…

DCIT CC 3(4) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Patel Engineering Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2486/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

Section 14ASection 154Section 199(2)Section 80I

…double deduction would constitute a 'mistake apparent from record' or not. It is submitted that the term 'mistake apparent from record' was deliberated in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.S. Balram, ITO v. Volkart brothers and Othrs (82 ITR 50) (copy placed at Pgnos 17-20 of case law paper book). The relevant findings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court are as under:- “.............It was not open to the Income-tax Officer to go into the true scope of the relevant provisions of the Act in a proceeding under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. A mistake apparent on the record must be an obv…

DCIT CC 3(4) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Patel Engineering Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2485/MUM/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

Section 14ASection 154Section 199(2)Section 80I

…double deduction would constitute a 'mistake apparent from record' or not. It is submitted that the term 'mistake apparent from record' was deliberated in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.S. Balram, ITO v. Volkart brothers and Othrs (82 ITR 50) (copy placed at Pgnos 17-20 of case law paper book). The relevant findings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court are as under:- “.............It was not open to the Income-tax Officer to go into the true scope of the relevant provisions of the Act in a proceeding under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. A mistake apparent on the record must be an obv…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad vs. Srinivasa Chakravarthi Raju Gokaraju, Hyderabad

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 2114/HYD/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Pawan Kumar Chakrapani, ARFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 249(4)

…t a mistake apparent on the face of the record. Only when such patent and obvious mistake is apparent from the record, the Assessing Officer is permitted to rectify or amend the Assessment Order, vide T.S. Balaram Income Tax Officer v. Volkart Brothers [1971] 82 ITR 50 (SC) 6. Mrs. M. Kiranmayee, learned standing counsel contends that the Assessing Officer in palpable contradiction to the ratio in KNR Constructions (supra), allowed deduction on the ground of depreciation after gross income was estimated at 12.5% on the main contractual receipts upon rejection of the books of accounts. Reliance is also placed on I…

Ramasamy Senthilkumar, Salem vs. ITO, Ward - 1 (3), Salem

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 986/CHNY/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Jun 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.986/Chny/2022 िनधा(रण वष( /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ramasamy Senthilkumar, The Income Tax Officer, 76/466, Rajaji Street, Ward-1(3), Suramangalam, Vs. Salem Salem-636 005. [Pan: Aqppk-1526-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate(Erode) ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.05.2023 : 16.06.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate(Erode)For Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 115BSection 139Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154Section 68

…o consider the settled principle that “a mistake apparent on the record 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” [Relying on 82 ITR 50 (SC). And for other reasons that may be adduced at the time of hearing, the appellant prays that this appeal be admitted, considered and justice be rendered. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and is engaged in the business of transport. He did not file return of income for the Assessment Year 2013-14 as per sect…

DCIT, CC-2, Jaipur vs. M/S. Royal Jewellers, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 176/JPR/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal(CIT)&
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

…aid balance-sheets contained the disclosed profits of one concern, two concems or three concerns was not a mistake apparent from record. The order of ld. CIT(A) is against the judgement of the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case T.S.Balram, ITO v Volkart Bros., 82 ITR 50. The hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in this case that- "A mistake apparent from record 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 be conceivably two opinions. A decision on a debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from record:" Th…

DCIT, CC-2, Jaipur vs. M/S. Royal Jewellers, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 175/JPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal(CIT)&
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

…aid balance-sheets contained the disclosed profits of one concern, two concems or three concerns was not a mistake apparent from record. The order of ld. CIT(A) is against the judgement of the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case T.S.Balram, ITO v Volkart Bros., 82 ITR 50. The hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in this case that- "A mistake apparent from record 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 be conceivably two opinions. A decision on a debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from record:" Th…

DCIT, CC-2, Jaipur vs. M/S. Royal Jewellers, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 174/JPR/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal(CIT)&
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

…aid balance-sheets contained the disclosed profits of one concern, two concems or three concerns was not a mistake apparent from record. The order of ld. CIT(A) is against the judgement of the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case T.S.Balram, ITO v Volkart Bros., 82 ITR 50. The hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in this case that- "A mistake apparent from record 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 be conceivably two opinions. A decision on a debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from record:" Th…

M/S. Royal Jewellers, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 115/JPR/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal(CIT)&
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

…aid balance-sheets contained the disclosed profits of one concern, two concems or three concerns was not a mistake apparent from record. The order of ld. CIT(A) is against the judgement of the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case T.S.Balram, ITO v Volkart Bros., 82 ITR 50. The hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in this case that- "A mistake apparent from record 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 be conceivably two opinions. A decision on a debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from record:" Th…

M/S. Royal Jewellers, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 114/JPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal(CIT)&
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

…aid balance-sheets contained the disclosed profits of one concern, two concems or three concerns was not a mistake apparent from record. The order of ld. CIT(A) is against the judgement of the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case T.S.Balram, ITO v Volkart Bros., 82 ITR 50. The hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in this case that- "A mistake apparent from record 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 be conceivably two opinions. A decision on a debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from record:" Th…

M/S. Royal Jewellers, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 113/JPR/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal(CIT)&
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

…aid balance-sheets contained the disclosed profits of one concern, two concems or three concerns was not a mistake apparent from record. The order of ld. CIT(A) is against the judgement of the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case T.S.Balram, ITO v Volkart Bros., 82 ITR 50. The hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in this case that- "A mistake apparent from record 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 be conceivably two opinions. A decision on a debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from record:" Th…

Arun Kumar Verma, Bhilai, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer 1(2), Bhilai, Durg

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of my aforesaid observations

ITA 80/RPR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.79 & 80/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-2020 Arun Kumar Verma Plot No.152, Telgu Para, Maroda Tank, Maroda, Bhilai (C.G.) Pan : Abkpv0530H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Puja Bajaj, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 142Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

…t and obvious from record that a recourse for seeking rectification of the said mistake u/s.154 of the Act is allowed. My aforesaid view is supported by the landmark judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of T.S. Balaram ITO vs. Volkart Bros (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court after deliberating at length on the scope and gamut of Section 154 of the Act had observed as under: “From what has been said above, it is clear that the question whether S.17(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 was applicable to the case of the first respondent is not free from doubt. Therefore the Income-ta…