Rectification of mistake. 154. [(1) With a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record an income-tax authority referred to in section 116 may,- (a) amend any order passed by it under the provisions of this Act ; [(b) amend any intimation or deemed 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. ] The aim of this examine is to look at the scope of the utilization “rectifying any mistake apparent from the record”, as showing in part 154. The pre-condition for the rectification of any mistake is that it ought to be an obvious mistake, apparent from the report. Curiously, the phrases mistake, obvious, &the report haven’t been outlined within the Act, therefore are topic to judicial interpretation. The judiciary has again and again come to the rescue of the beleaguered assessees in in accordance a simply and honest interpretation to the phrases mistake & obvious, in order that the assessee just isn’t uncovered to post-assessment penalties, within the nature of enchantment, which couldn’t solely be harsh and unsure, but in addition expensive, time consuming and unwarranted, specifically when the assessee doesn’t have a pure proper of enchantment. The actual fact stays uncontested that the tax proceedings could be ruthlessly crucifying, than even the legal proceedings. It’s submitted that the judiciary has largely clarified the stated phrases mistake & obvious, and the warmth and dirt attendant there to appear to have largely settled. Therefore no a lot emphasis is accorded to those phrases on this article. Nonetheless, the time period “the record” has not been topic to intensive judicial examination leaving the stated time period huge open to interpretation. The importance of the stated time period “the record” is analysed by making an attempt solutions to the next questions : 3.1 Whether or not the AO ought to rectify the order/ intimation, in case the assessee doesn’t produce a beneficial judgment on the evaluation stage, however after the evaluation, counting on a beneficial judgment, applies for rectification of mistake obvious from “the record” u/s 154? 3.2 Whether or not the judgments already pronounced by the courts or tribunals (whether or not jurisdictional or in any other case), whether or not pre or submit passing of the order or intimation by the AO, would fall throughout the that means of “the record”, for the aim of S 154, no matter whether or not the assessee depends on them or not on the evaluation stage? 3.Three Whether or not the AO ought to be permitted to argue that solely such legislation, as is positioned earlier than him by the assessee, constitutes “the record”, to the utter oblivion of the legislation that holds good, although not delivered to the discover of the AO by the assessee? 3.Four Whether or not the AO could be right in arguing that the legislation as enunciated by the courts or tribunals, would represent “the record” for the aim of S 154, solely when it is dropped at his discover by the assessee within the evaluation proceedings& that not bringing such legislation to his discover, makes it extraneous to “the record”, missing software? 4. Judicial pronouncements The next judicial pronouncements, want cautious consideration: 4.1 S 263revision orders 4.1.1 S 263 could be invoked by the Commissioner of Earnings Tax (CIT) in case the order handed by the AO is inaccurate and is prejudicial to the pursuits of the income. Clarification 2(d) to sub clause 1 of part 263, requires the AO to use the selections prejudicial to the assessee, rendered by the jurisdictional Excessive Courtroom or Supreme Courtroom within the case of the assessee or another particular person, failing which the CIT is empowered to invoke S 263 revision of such an order. 4.1.2 It’s submitted that such prejudicial orders to the assessee, clearly is probably not introduced on the report by the assessee in the middle of evaluation proceedings, although the AO is anticipated to be within the information of such prejudicial orders, and likewise to use them within the evaluation. 4.1.Three An order by the judicial authorities is the legislation as expounded &articulated by them, which primarily is the aim of the structure and existence of such judicial authorities. Such expounding and articulation owes its allegiance, primarily to the provisions of the statute below which such orders are pronounced. Such legislation takes impact not from the date of saying such orders, however from the date from on which such provision discovered place within the statute. 4.1.Four There could be no denying that legislation (learn the Earnings Tax Act 1961) as expounded & articulated by the judicial authorities kinds part of the report of the AO, which he’s responsibility certain to implement. It’s due to this fact submitted that such orders even when not introduced on report by the assessee, must be utilized by the AO, as part of the legislation, on the report, which he’s obliged to implement. 4.1.5 It’s submitted that the legislation (learn the Earnings Tax Act 1961) is a part of the report of the AO. A aware effort is made by the laws to use to the assessee, from the report of the AO, the orders prejudicial to the assessee, in the middle of evaluation, because the legislation as expounded & articulated by the judicial authorities is the legislation of the land. 4.1.6 It requires a specific point out that such legislation (learn orders prejudicial to the assessee) if not utilized by the AO, renders the order inaccurate in legislation, responsible for revision u/s 263, offered it’s prejudicial to the income. 4.1.7 In view of the above, it’s submitted that there could be no denying that even the legislation (learn orders prejudicial to the income) as expounded and articulated by the judicial authorities, are part of the legislation (learn Earnings Tax Act 1961), on the report of the AO, which he’s obliged to implement. The aim of an evaluation is to use the legislation by the AO, and to not solely extricate &apply from the report of the AO, such orders as are prejudicial to the assessee. The aim of an evaluation can also be not, to solely go such orders, as are prejudicial to the assessee.