LexM/S. POOTHUNDU PLANTATIONS PVT. LTD. versus AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX OFFICER, CHITTOOR, KERALA STATE AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
MiS. POOTHUNDU PLANTATIONS PVT. LTD. v. AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX OFFICER, CHITTOOR, KERALA STATE AND ORS. JULY 15, 1996 [B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND SUHAS C. SEN, JJ.] Kerala Agiicultural Income Tax Act 1950/lndian Income-tax Ace; 1922 A B c Ss. 12, 36/s.24-Rectificatio11 of mistake-Held, only an apparent en-or of fact or law ca11 be rectified-Mistake pwp01ted to have occwred by construing the words of a section, cannot nonnally, be a rectifiable en·or u/s. 36-Constming the meaning of a section contrmy to the meaning given by Supreme Cowt is an en-or apparent on the record-Section 12 of Kera/a Act and S. 24 of Central Act are not identi~al and the judginent of Supreme Court D inte1preting s. 24 of Central Act cannot be applied straightaway to inte1pret s. 12 of Kera/a Act. Tbe appellant-assessee was assessed under the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act. Later another Agricultural Income Tax Officer, exercising E the power under s. 36 of the Act, rectified the order passed by his predeces- sor on the ground that in view of the interpretation of s. 24 of Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, given by this Court*, his predecessor wrongly construed the provisions of s. 12 of the Act and thereby committed an apparent error of law in computation of agricultural income tax. The High Court also decided against the assessee. Aggrieved the assessee filed the appeal. Allowing the appeal, this Court F HELD : 1. Only an apparent error of fact or law can be rectified by G an officer exercising the power under s. 36 of the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1950. JI' the mistake of law has to be established by consiruing"the words of a section to find its proper meaning, then such an error cannot norn1ally be a rectifiable error under s. 36. If two views are possible, then obviously the error will not be an error apparent from the record. (569-F] H 567 568 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 3S.C.R. A 2.1. ff the Supreme Court has construed the meaning of a section, then any decision to the contrary given by any other authority must be held to be erroneous and such error mu!'lt be treated as an error apparent on the record. [569-G] 2.2. Section 24 of Indian lucome Tax Act, 1922 and Section 12 of the B Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act are not identically worded. Even if it can be established by a long process of reasoning that the meaning of the two sections is the same, the alleged mistake committed by the Agricultural Income Tax Officer cannot be treated as a mistake apparent on the record. C ff any error had at all been committed by the Agricultural Income Tax Officer, it was not an error apparent on the record. The judgment of the Supreme Court explaining the provision of Section 24 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 cannot be applied straightaway to interpret Section 12 of the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act. [570-D; 571-B] D Anglo-French Textile Company Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras, (1953) 23 ITR 82, held inapplicable. 3. The judgment and order passed by the High Court and the order of rectification passed by the Assistant Appellate Commissioner are set E aside. [571-D] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 9168 of 1996. From the Judgment and Order dated 8.10.93 of the Kerala High F Court in O.P. No. 8575 of 1984-J. Joseph Vellappally and M.P. Vinod for the Appellant. G. Prakash for the Respondents. G The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SEN, J. Leave granted. This case arises out of an order of rectification of mistake apparent on the face of record under Section 36 of the Kerala Agricultural Income H Tax Act. The Section, as it stood at the material time, was as under : POOTHUNDU PLANTATIONS PVT. LTD. v. AGRJCUL1URALJNCOMETAXOFPICER[SEN, J.j . 569 "36. Rectification of mistake : (1) The authority which passed an A order on appeal or revision may at any time within three years from the date of such order passed by him on appeal or i.n revision, and the Agricultural Income Tax Officer may at any time within three years from the date of any assessment or refund order passed by him, of his own motion, rectify any mistake apparent from the record of the appeal, revision, assessment or refund, as the case may be, and shall within the like period rectify any such mistake which has been brought to his notice by an assessee : The short question in this case is whether an Agricultural Income Tax Officer can rectify the order passed b
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.