Obvious mistake of law cannot be rectified U/s. 154, while mistake apparent from record can be rectified

Held, that the Income-tax Officer was justified in exercising his powers under s. 35 and rectifying the mistake. As a result of, the legal fiction about the retrospective operation of the Amendment Act, the subsequently inserted proviso must be read as. forming part of s. 18-A(5) of the principal Act as from April 1, 1952, and consequently the order of the income-tax Officer dated October 9, 1952, was inconsistent with the provisions of the proviso, and suffered from a mistake apparent from the record.

Supreme Court of India 

M. K. VENKATACHALAIVI, I. T. O. AND ANOTHER 

 Vs. 

BOMBAY DYEING AND MFG. CO., LTD. 

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.