Madras High Court
M/S.The Cuddalore District ... vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income ... on 14 June, 2021
W.P.No.20049 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED :14.06.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.No.20049 of 2018
and
W.M.P.No.23513 of 2018
M/s.The Cuddalore District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd.,
Represented by its General Manager,
Mr.S.Janagiraman,
No.1, Beach Road, Cuddalore – 607 001. ...Petitioner
Vs
The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,
O/o.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,
Cuddalore Circle,
Soorappa Naicken Chavadi, Cuddalore – 607 002.
... Respondent
PRAYER : Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned
notice in AAAAT7716R/2011-12 dated 25.06.2018 issued by the respondent
and quash the same as the mistakes proposed to be rectified does not fall
within the ambit of the term “mistake apparent from the record”.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Ravi
For Respondent : Mr.A.P.Srinivas
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.20049 of 2018
Senior Standing Counsel
for Income Tax
ORDER
The Notice issued under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act,
1961 is under challenge in the writ on hand.
2. The impugned notice reveals that the Assessment Order
under Section 143 (3) r/w Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, dated
27.02.2015 for the Assessment Year 2011 – 12 requires to be amended, as
there is a mistake apparent from the record within the meaning of Section
154 of Income Tax Act, 1961. Thus the Authority Competent, in order to
provide an opportunity to the petitioner, issued a notice fixing the date and
time for personal hearing i.e., 09.07.2018 at 11.00 AM. The petitioner had
not chosen to appear in person before the respondent, but has chosen to file
the present writ petition mainly on the ground that the case of the petitioner
is not falling within the scope of Section 154 of Income Tax Act and thus the
respondent has no jurisdiction to issue notice and consequently, the
impugned notice is liable to be set aside. However, the fact remains that the
writ petitioner filed a reply to the notice in writing on 09.07.2018.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.20049 of 2018
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
strenuously contended that the case on hand is a classic case, where there is
an error apparent on exercise of jurisdiction by the respondent under Section
154 of the Income Tax Act. Further the respondent has not considered the
facts and circumstances as well as the points raised in the reply by the
petitioner for initiation of Rectification Proceedings under Section 154 of the
Income Tax Act. The entire exercise is done beyond the scope of the
provision under Section 154 of the Act and thus the impugned order is
unsustainable.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner solicited the attention
of this Court with reference to the notice issued under Section 142 (1) of the
Income Tax Act on 27.01.2015 of the annexure to the said order states that
specific reply is given to the each of the queries and furnish details. Item 19
and 20 reveals that as per Provisional Statement of Total Income, it is
noticed that the petitioner has claimed deductions in respect of provision for
bad and doubtful debts under Section 36 (1) (viia). Item 20 states that the
nature and basis for claiming exemption of Rs.13,03,558.90 as “TN
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.20049 of 2018
Govt.Waiver u/s.36 (1) (viia) and further it states that explain whether this
outstanding amount belongs to any rural branch. If so, which branch?
5. It is contended that the assessee clarified all these queries and
substantially submitted materials to prove their claims in the order passed
under Section 143 (3) read with Section 147 of Income Tax Act, dated
27.02.2015. The assessee claimed deductions in their return of income under
Section 36 (1) (viia). In the said order, the Authorities considered all these
facts and finally accepted the return of assessed income and thereafter the
petitioner filed a petition under Section 154 of the Income tax Act, 1961 on
12.03.2015. Even in that petition, all these factors were brought to the notice
of the Income Tax Authorities. The Authorities in proceedings dated
25.08.2015, carefully considered the assessee's petition with regard to the
assessee's claim in respect of reserve created for overdue interest added to
the total income returned. The petitioner further contends that in order dated
30.03.2017, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Puducherry, made a
representation of assessment under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act and
the operative portion of the order reads as under:
“5. The assessee's above submissions have been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.20049 of 2018
carefully considered and both the issues are remitted back to
the file of the Assessing Officer for the purpose of examinations
of the assessee's claims with reference to the books of account /
records maintained by the assessee. The Assessing Officer has
to pass a speaking order after considering the issues on merits.
Therefore, the order under Section 143(3) read with Section
147 dated 27.02.2015 is set aside for the limited purpose to
consider the above two issues only.”
6. Regarding the Tamil Nadu Government Waiver account also
the authorities categorically considered all the circumstances and even in
proceedings dated 30.03.2017, the assesse had claimed Rs.7,79,641/- as
Tamil Nadu Government Waiver amount as eligible deduction as per Section
36 (1) (viia). Finally in the order dated 21.12.2017 passed under Section 143
(3) read with Section 264 of Income Tax Act, 1961, the Authorities have
considered all these aspects elaborately and passed orders on merits and,
therefore, the very initiation of proceedings under Section 144 for
rectification of mistake is beyond the scope and now the respondent is
making an attempt to adjudicate a disputable point, which is impermissible
in view of the decisions of the various Courts in this regard.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.20049 of 2018
7. The learned counsel of the petitioner relied on the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of T.S.Balaram, Income
Tax Officer vs. Volkart Brothers reported in [1971] 82 ITR 50 (SC),
wherein Apex Court held as follows:
“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.
Section 113 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.
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-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 S.
154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. A mistake apparent on the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.20049 of 2018
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 and
ors. v. Millikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale(1) 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 AndannappaManvi v. Commissioner-
of Income-tax, Bombay (2). 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 66 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.20049 of 2018
assessments of the first respondent.”
8. In the case of Harbans Lal Malhotra & Sons (P) Ltd vs.
Income Tax Officer reported in [1972] 83 ITR 848 (Calcutta), the High
Court of Calcutta held that “ITO issued notice under section 154/155
proposing rectification of assessment order wherein assessee was wrongly
allowed depreciation of 10 percent instead of 7 percent on machinery used
for production of safety razor blades could be said to be part of 'Iron &
Steel Industry' and could come within category (b) of item III (ii) in Part I of
Appendix I of Income-tax Rules, 1962 which was a question which required,
firstly an interpretation of expression 'other machinery and plant' and,
secondly, nature of machinery and plant used by assessee – Held, yes –
whether since that would require investigation both of facts as well as
interpretation of law, it could not be said that it was an obvious and
apparent mistake which was self-evident and did not require either a process
of argument or investigation – Held, yes – whether, therefore, proceedings
taken under Section 154 were without jurisdiction and further proceedings
pursuant to impugned notice had to be quashed .”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.20049 of 2018
9. In yet an another judgment in the case of Coates of India
ltd., vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax reported in [1995] 214 ITR
498 (Cal), the Calcutta High Court held that “different courts have held that
both under Section 143 (1) (a) and Section 154, the Assessing Officer has
power to act only when there is no dispute as to fact and law. The very
matter which was sought to be rectified under Section 154 was pending
decision before the Commissioner (Appeals). There was thus a “live”
dispute on the subject-matter of Section 154, a dispute which could not be
dismissed out of hand. Apart form no notice under Section 154 being
permissible in the circumstances of the case, the Assessing Officer himself
could not have decided any debatable issue under Section 143 (1) (a). By
the impugned notice under Section 154, the Deputy Commissioner was
seeking to correct the intimation under Section 143 (1) (a) by introducing a
matter which he could not have decided under Section 143 (1) (a).”
10. Citing all these judgments, the learned counsel for the
petitioner reiterated that a case on hand is not a case of mistake apparent on
record and it is a case of disputable issue which is sought to be adjudicated
by the respondent and, therefore, the impugned notice is beyond the scope of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.20049 of 2018
Section 154 of the Income Tax Act and thus, the writ petition is to be
allowed.
11. The learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of
the Income Tax Department objected the contentions raised on behalf of the
writ petitioner in entirety by stating that it is a case of mistake apparent on
record. An attempt to piece the facts of the case made by the petitioner
cannot be accepted. The respondent in clear terms mentioned the mistake
sought to be rectified in the impugned notice itself. The impugned notice
reveals that the assesse had debated provision for bad and doubtful debts
(reserve created for NPA) of Rs.79,84,914/- only in the financials. However,
deduction under Section 36 (1) (viia) was allowed for Rs.11,75,76,692/-.
This has to be restricted to the provision for bad and doubtful debts made by
the assessee in financials. The assesse has already submitted his reply. The
reply is yet to be considered by the Authorities Competent. Thus the writ
petition is premature and is to be dismissed on the ground of maintainability.
The respondent has not formed any final opinion and the writ petition is filed
based on presumptions and assumptions. If at all, the petitioner is of the
opinion that there is no mistake apparent on record and it is a disputable
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.20049 of 2018
issue, which is sought to be reopen, the said grounds shall be raised and the
Authorities Competent are bound to consider those grounds and pass orders.
Even in case an order is passed against the petitioner, the petitioner is having
right of appeal and, therefore, the present writ petition is to be dismissed on
the ground of maintainability itself.
12. The learned Senior Standing Counsel by referring the
counter affidavit filed by the respondent have stated that the mistake
apparent on record sought to be rectified by invoking Section 154 of the
Income Tax Act, is enumerated in Paragraph Nos.5 & 6 of the counter
affidavit which reads as under:
“5. I submit that for claiming depreciation u/s.32
the petitioner had to file detailed particulars and had to make
a specific claim for depreciation allowance, provided that
depreciation could not be allowed where the required
particulars had not been furnished by the petitioner and no
claim for the depreciation had been made in the return.
6. I submit that it is clear that the provision for
bad and doubtful debts is under section 36 (1) (viia). Unless
amount of bad and doubtful debts is debited to the provision
for bad and doubtful debts account and the deduction
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.20049 of 2018
admissible u/s.36 (1) (vii) is limited to the amount by which
such debt or part thereof exceeds the credit balance in the
provision for bad and doubtful debts account. The language
and intention of the legislature is clear and unambiguous and
therefore the mistake in this case is apparent from record and
thus issue of notice under section 154 is within ambit of
section 154 of the Income Tax Act, it is mistake apparent from
record.”
13. The scope of Section 154 is also elaborated by the learned
Senior Standing Counsel by stating that with a view to rectify, the Income
Tax Authority referred to Section 116 may also be a ground to invoke
Section 154 of the Act. Thus, it is a definite case of mistake apparent on
record and, therefore, there is no error on the part of the respondent for
invoking Section 154 of the Act. If at all, the contrary opinion is raised by
the petitioner, it is left open to him to avail the opportunity provided and
place all the grounds before the Authorities Competent enabling them to
consider on merits and in accordance with law.
14. The principles to be adopted for the purpose of entertaining
a writ petition against show-cause notice under Article 226 of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.20049 of 2018
Constitution of India are that:
a) if any show cause notice is issued by the incompetent
authority;
b) if any show-cause notice has been issued on malafide
grounds; then alone a writ petition is entertainable.
A writ against a show cause notice, High Courts cannot venture into
adjudication of merits and such a roving procedures cannot be under taken in
a writ proceedings. In other words, in the event of entertaining the grounds
on merits, the rights of the parties would be prejudiced as the authorities
have not made a finding in respect of those disputed facts on merits. All such
facts and disputed grounds are to be adjudicated by the Original Authority
with reference to the documents and evidences.
15. The power of judicial review under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India for the High Court is to scrutinize the processes
through which a decision is taken by the Competent Authority and not the
decision itself. Thus, the High Court cannot entertain merits of the case in
cases where show-cause notice is under challenge. Even in case of raising
allegation of malafides, the authority against whom such an allegation of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.20049 of 2018
malafides are raised is to be impleaded as a party-respondent in its personal
capacity. Thus, the scope of entertaining writ petition against a show-cause
notice is limited and, therefore, in this perspective the present writ petition is
to be considered.
16. Let us now consider the scope of Section 154 which denotes
rectification of mistake. Section 154 (1) stipulates that “ With a view to
rectifying any mistake apparent form the record an income-tax authority
referred to section 116 may -
(a) amend any order passed by it under the provisions of this Act;
(b) amend any intimation under sub-section (1) of section 143;
(c) amend any intimation under sub-section (1) of section 200A;
(d) amend any intimation under sub-section (1) of section 206CB;
17. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, by invoking Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, the authority
cannot re-adjudicate the facts on merits. Disputable facts and circumstances
cannot be adjudicated under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act. The learned
counsel has pointed out that such an adjudication would cause prejudice to
the interest of the assessee.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.20049 of 2018
18. This Court is of the considered opinion that Section 154
cannot be converted as an appeal for entertaining a ground for adjudication
of merits or disputable issues. Thus, the scope of Section 154 is undoubtedly
limited with reference to the circumstances narrated under the provision
itself.
Section 154 unambiguously enumerates that mistake apparent from
record. Thus, the Authority Competent must be able to identify the mistake
apparent from record, then he can issue notice under Section 154 providing
opportunity to the assessee and pass an order.
19. In the present case, the respondent has stated clearly that the
provision for bad and doubtful debts is under Section 36 (1) (viia). Unless
amount of bad and doubtful debts is debited to the provision for bad and
doubtful debts account and the deduction admissible u/s.36 (1) (vii) is
limited to the amount by which such debt or part thereof exceeds the credit
balance in the provision for bad and doubtful debts account. The language
and intention of the legislature is clear and unambiguous and therefore the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.20049 of 2018
mistake in this case is apparent from record and thus issue of notice under
section 154 is within the ambit of section 154 of the Income Tax Act, and it
is a mistake apparent from record.
20. It is contended that the respondent is not going to adjudicate
the merits of the issue. They have intended to rectify the mistake regarding
the amount of bad and doubtful debts is debited to the provision for bad and
doubtful debts account and the deduction admissible under Section 36 (1)
(vii) is limited to the amount by which such debt or part thereof exceeds the
credit balance in the provision for bad and doubtful debts account. It is
contended that it is a mistake committed while passing an order of
assessment. Therefore, such a mistake apparent from record is to be
rectified. The learned Senior Standing Counsel, reiterated that the
Authorities have not intended to go beyond the scope of Section 154 for
rectification of mistake, which is apparent from record and, therefore, the
writ petitioner is at liberty to defend his case before the Authorities
Concerned regarding the grounds raised.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.20049 of 2018
21. This Court is of the considered opinion that even in respect
of the grounds raised, if at all the petitioner is of an opinion that the
Authorities may venture into the adjudication of disputed issues, it is for
them to place all the judgments and facts with reference to Section 154 of
the Income Tax Act. Contrarily, this Court cannot go into those facts and
circumstances regarding the mistake apparent from record. The respondent
is clear in their terms that they are not intended to go beyond the scope of
Section 154 and the notice was issued specifically stating that the mistake
apparent from record alone is to be created. Even impugned notice reveals
that the nature of mistake proposed to be rectified is clear that the respondent
has not taken any steps to adjudicate the disputable issues. Even otherwise
also, the petitioner has got ample opportunities to place their grounds before
the Authorities Competent and the Authorities are bound to consider the
grounds on merits and in accordance with law. The petitioner had already
submitted his reply, if necessary, they are at liberty to submit further
explanations or documents.
22. With reference to the judgments cited on behalf of the writ
petitioner, this Court is of the considered opinion that regarding the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.20049 of 2018
observations made by Apex Court of India in the case of T.S.Balaram,
Income Tax Officer vs. Volkart Brothers, it was a case where Section 71 of
the Income Tax Act, was applicable to the case of the respondent is not free
from doubt. Therefore, the Income Tax Officer was not justified in thinking
that on that questions there could be no two opinions which was not proved
the scope of relevant provisions of the Act under Section 154 of the Income
Tax. Thus, the Supreme Court in unambiguous terms held that the authorities
competent cannot go beyond the scope of Section 154 of the Income Tax Act
in the said case. The issue adjudicated was considered as disputable by Apex
Court. However, the precedent laid down is that the Authorities Competent
are empowered to invoke Section 154 of the Income Tax Act only if they
find any mistake apparent on record and such a mistake is sought to be
rectified. As far as the other two judgments of the Calcutta High Court are
concerned, the facts are also dissimilar and further the proposition mooted
by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be disputed as scope of
Section 154 of the Income Tax Act is limited and the Authorities are
empowered to invoke Section 154 only by adhering to the grounds
contemplated under the said provision.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.20049 of 2018
23. In the present writ petition, the respondent has established
that they have not gone beyond the scope of Section 154 and they have taken
steps to rectify the mistake apparent from record and the nature of mistake
apparent from record is also furnished in the impugned notice issued under
Section 154 of the Act. Thus the petitioner is at liberty to participate in the
Section 154 proceedings and defend his case by availing opportunities
provided by the Authorities. In the event of passing final orders and if at all
the petitioner is aggrieved from and out of that order, it is left open to him to
prefer an appeal under the provisions of the Act.
24. With this liberty, the writ petition stands dismissed. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
14.06.2021
Speaking order
Index : Yes
Internet: Yes
Pns
To
The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,
O/o.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,
Cuddalore Circle,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.20049 of 2018
Soorappa Naicken Chavadi, Cuddalore – 607 002.
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.
Pns
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.20049 of 2018
W.P.No.20049 of 2018
Dated : 14.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
