Case Law Details
Markand Induprasad Bhatt Vs DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad)
However, we note that the power of rectification u/s 154 of the Act can be exercised only if there is a mistake apparent from the record which is one of the pre-condition meaning thereby the mistake should be apparent, obvious from the record. In other words, in order to attract the power to rectify the mistake u/s 154, it is not sufficient that there is merely a mistake in the order sought to be rectified.
The mistake could be rectified if the same is apparent from the record. The plain meaning of the word “apparent” is that it must be something which appears to be so exact and incapable of argument or debate. It, therefore, follows that a decision on a debatable point of law or fact or failure to apply the law to a set of facts, which remain to be investigated, cannot be corrected by way of rectification. A mistake apparent on the 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 be conceivably two opinions; a decision on a debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from record.
Thus we are of the view that the salary disclosed by the employer of the assessee while filing the form 16 of the employee, it is evident that the assessee has received the salary amount on which the TDS is deducted if the same are not taken into consideration, then the employer is questionable upon the less TDS deduction and deposit.
We further note that the lower authorities has taken a view that each and every payment by the employer to the employee as salary cannot become the part of TDS as the employer can deduct less TDS/not deducted due to amount of payment was too low/not paid regularly. However, we find that the ld. CIT-A did not bring on record to sustain the view as discussed above.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
