COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. GAYATRI GLASS WORKS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE following questions have been referred in this case: 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in coming to the conclusion that there was no apparent mistake of law and facts in the order of the learned CIT (A) dated 3.2.1983 which could be rectified under Section 154(1)(b) and 154(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?

(2.) WHETHER the observations of the Hon'ble Tribunal that there is a presumption embedded in the order of the CIT (Appeals) that when he made the earlier order there was no evidence before him to show from the record that the assessment was saved by limitation because of the concealment by the assessee are based on correct appreciation of evidence on record?

(3.) IN the case of C.I.T. v. Hero Cycles Private Limited : [1997]228ITR463(SC) the Supreme Court held as follows: Rectification under Section 154 can only be made when a glaring mistake of fact or law committed by the officer passing the order becomes apparent from the record. Rectification is not possible if the question is debatable. Moreover a point which was not examined on facts or in law cannot be dealt with as a mistake apparent from the record.