Case: T. S. Balaram, Income Tax Officer,Company Circle Iv, Bombay Vs. M/S. Volkart Brothers, Bombay

orders of assessment. They disputed the Income-tax Officers authority to make any correction. The Income-tax Officer did not accept the contention of the respondents and assessed them by applying the provisions of S. 17 (1) of the 1922 Act. The respondents challenged the validity of the orders rectifying the assessments, before the High Court of Bombay as mentioned earlier. The High Court took the view that the original assessments made on the respondents were prima facie in accordance with law and at any rate as there was no obvious or patent mistake in those orders of assessment, the Income-tax Officer was incompetent to pass the impugned orders. 2. The first question that we have to decide is whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Officer was within his powers in making the impugned rectifications. He purported to make those rectifications under S. 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. That section to the extent material for our present purpose reads:"154 (1). With a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record- (a) the Income-tax Officer may amend any order of assessment or of refund or any other order passed by him. xx xx xx" The corresponding section in the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 is S. 35. 3. We have now to see whether the Income-tax Officer was justified in opining that in the original orders of assessment, there was any apparent mistake. As seen earlier in the original assessments of the firm for the relevant assessment years. the Income-tax Officer adopted the slab rates applicable to registered firms. The question for decision is whether the first respondents firm came within the mischief of S. 17 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. Section 17 (1) reads:"Where a person is not resident in the taxable territories and is not a company, the tax, including super-tax, payable by him or on his behalf on his total income shall be an amount equal to- (a) the income-tax which would be payable on his total income at the maximum rate, plus (b) either the super-tax which would be payable on his total income at the rate of nineteen per cent, or the super-tax which would be payable on his total income if it were the total income of a person resident in the taxable territories whichever is greater ......." (Proviso to the section is not relevant for our present purpose). 4. Section 17 (1) can apply to a "person". The expression "person" is defined in S. 2 (9) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 thus:""person" includes a Hindu undivided family and a local authority". 5. Unless a firm can be considered as a "person", S. 17 (1) cannot govern the assessment of the first respondent. In the Income-tax Act, 1961 (S. 2 (31)), the expression "person" is defined differently. That definition reads:""person" includes- (i) an individual, (ii) a Hindu undivided family, (iii) a company, (iv) a firm, (v) an association of persons or a body of individuals, whether incorporated or not, (vi) a local authority and (vii) every artificial juridical person, not falling within any of the preceding sub-clauses." 6. It is a matter for consideration whether the definition contained in S. 2 (31) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is an amendment of the law or is merely declaratory of the law that was in force earlier. To pronounce upon this question, it may be necessary to examine various provisions in the Act as well as its scheme. 7. Section l13 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponded to S. 17 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 but that section has now been omitted with effect from April 1, 1965 as a result of the Finance Act, 1965. 8. From what has been said above, it is clear that the question whether S. 17 (i) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 was applicable to the case of the first respondent is not free from doubt. Therefore the Income-tax Officer was not justified in thinking that on that question there can be no two opinions. 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 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. As seen earlier, the High Court of Bombay opined that the original assessments were in accordance with law though in our opinion the High Court was not justified in going into that question.In Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale, (1960) 1 S. C. R. 890=(AIR 1960 S. C. 137) this Court while spelling out the scope of the power of a High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution ruled that an error which has to be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions cannot be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. A decision on a debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from the record- see Sidhramappa v. Commr. of Income-tax, Bombay, (1952) 21 ITR 333 = (AIR 1952 Bom 287 ).The power of the officers mentioned in S. 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 to correct "any mistake apparent from the record" is undoubtedly not more than that of the High Court to entertain a writ petition on the basis of an "error apparent on the face of the record". In this case it is not necessary for us to spell out the distinction between the expressions "error apparent on the face of the record" and "mistake apparent from the record". But suffice it to say that the Income-tax Officer was wholly wrong in holding that there was a mistake apparent from the record of the assessments of the first respondent. 9. For the

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]8. From what has been said above, it is clear thatthequestionr S. 17 (i) oftheIndianIncome-tax Act,1922was applicable tothecase ofthefirst respondent is not free from doubt. ThereforetheIncome-tax Officer was not justified in thinking that on thatquestione can be no two opinions. It was not open totheIncome-tax Officer to go intothetrue scope oftherelevant provisions oftheAct in a proceeding under section 154 oftheIncome-tax Act,1961. A mistake apparent ontherecord must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on whiche may conceivably be two opinions. As seen earlier,theHigh Court of Bombay opined thattheoriginal assessments were in accordance with law though in our opiniontheHigh Court was not justified in going into thatn Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale, (1960) 1 S. C. R. 890=(AIR 1960 S. C. 137) this Court while spelling outthescope ofthepower of a High Court under Art. 226 oftheConstitution ruled that an error which has to be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points wheree may conceivably be two opinions cannot be said to be an error apparent ontheface oftherecord. A decision on a debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent fromtherecord- see Sidhramappa v. Commr. of Income-tax, Bombay, (1952) 21 ITR 333 = (AIR 1952 Bom 287  ).The power oftheofficers mentioned in S. 154 oftheIncome-tax Act,1961 to correct "any mistake apparent fromtherecord" is undoubtedly not more than that oftheHigh Court to entertain a writ petition onthebasis of an "error apparent ontheface oftherecord". In this case it is not necessary for us to spell outthedistinction betweentheexpressions "error apparent ontheface oftherecord" and "mistake apparent fromtherecord". But suffice it to say thattheIncome-tax Officer was wholly wrong in holding thate was a mistake apparent fromtherecord oftheassessments ofthefirst respondent.