Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J. - (1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged a notice dated August 10, 1988, issued under Section 154/155 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, whereby assessment order dated June 20, 1984, under Section 143(3) for the assessment year 1982-83 is sought to be amended as there is a mistake apparent from the records within the meaning of Section 154/155 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The object behind the notice is to enhance the assessment for increasing the liability. The nature of the mistake proposed to be rectified has been given that a sum of Rs. 12,69,760 being the amount paid to the Bata Workmen Sickness Benefit Society was wrongly allowed.
(2.) Mr. Bajoria, learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, contends that the notice under the aforesaid section is bad in law as the assessment order in the name of rectification of the mistake cannot be reopened. The scope and purview of Section 154/155 is very limited and this can only be exercised where the mistake is apparent on the face of the record upon a plain reading of the assessment order. If there is any scope for further enquiry and reconsideration of any materials then the aforesaid section is of no help. In substance, he contends, while applying the aforesaid Section 154/155, the officer concerned is to look into the order only and nothing else. In this context, he relies on a decision of a learned single judge of this court delivered in the case of Coates of India Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (No. 2.) [1995] 214 ITR 504. He also refers to a Division Bench judgment of this court while examining the scope and purview of Section 154/155 of the Income-tax Act, reported in ITO v. India Foils Ltd. He has drawn my attention to the Supreme Court judgment on the aforesaid section reported in T. S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Brothers.
(3.) He contends that on previous occasions and even on occasions subsequent to this assessment order, the Department concerned did not question the allowance of deduction of the aforesaid expenditure incurred for paying the Bata Workmen Sickness Benefit Society. He has drawn my attention to the learned Tribunal's judgment which has accepted the contention of the writ petitioner that the aforesaid deduction is allowable.;