M/S. POOTHUNDU PLANTATIONS PVT. LTD.versusAGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX OFFICER, CHITTOOR, KERALA STATE AND ORS.

           MiS. POOTHUNDU PLANTATIONS PVT. LTD.                                 A
                                     v.
      AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX OFFICER, CHITTOOR,
                KERALA STATE AND ORS.

                              JULY 15, 1996
                                                                                B
          [B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND SUHAS C. SEN, JJ.]

      Kerala Agiicultural Income Tax Act 1950/lndian Income-tax Ace; 1922

                                                                                c
       Ss. 12, 36/s.24-Rectificatio11 of mistake-Held, only an apparent en-or
of fact or law ca11 be rectified-Mistake pwp01ted to have occwred by
construing the words of a section, cannot nonnally, be a rectifiable en·or u/s.
36-Constming the meaning of a section contrmy to the meaning given by
Supreme Cowt is an en-or apparent on the record-Section 12 of Kera/a Act
and S. 24 of Central Act are not identi~al and the judginent of Supreme Court D
inte1preting s. 24 of Central Act cannot be applied straightaway to inte1pret s.
12 of Kera/a Act.

      Tbe appellant-assessee was assessed under the Kerala Agricultural
Income Tax Act. Later another Agricultural Income Tax Officer, exercising       E
the power under s. 36 of the Act, rectified the order passed by his predeces-
sor on the ground that in view of the interpretation of s. 24 of Indian
Income Tax Act, 1922, given by this Court*, his predecessor wrongly
construed the provisions of s. 12 of the Act and thereby committed an
apparent error of law in computation of agricultural income tax. The High
Court also decided against the assessee. Aggrieved the assessee filed the       F
appeal.

      Allowing the appeal, this Court

     HELD : 1. Only an apparent error of fact or law can be rectified by        G
an officer exercising the power under s. 36 of the Kerala Agricultural
Income Tax Act, 1950. JI' the mistake of law has to be established by
consiruing"the words of a section to find its proper meaning, then such an
error cannot norn1ally be a rectifiable error under s. 36. If two views are
possible, then obviously the error will not be an error apparent from the
record. (569-F]                                                                 H
                                    567
    568                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 3S.C.R.

A         2.1. ff the Supreme Court has construed the meaning of a section,
    then any decision to the contrary given by any other authority must be held
    to be erroneous and such error mu!'lt be treated as an error apparent on
    the record. [569-G]

            2.2. Section 24 of Indian lucome Tax Act, 1922 and Section 12 of the
B Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act are not identically worded. Even if it
    can be established by a long process of reasoning that the meaning of the
    two sections is the same, the alleged mistake committed by the Agricultural
    Income Tax Officer cannot be treated as a mistake apparent on the record.

C         ff any error had at all been committed by the Agricultural Income
    Tax Officer, it was not an error apparent on the record. The judgment of
    the Supreme Court explaining the provision of Section 24 of the Indian
    Income Tax Act, 1922 cannot be applied straightaway to interpret Section
    12 of the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act. [570-D; 571-B]

D           Anglo-French Textile Company Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax,
    Madras, (1953) 23 ITR 82, held inapplicable.

          3. The judgment and order passed by the High Court and the order
    of rectification passed by the Assistant Appellate Commissioner are set
E   aside. [571-D]

            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 9168 of
    1996.

            From the Judgment and Order dated 8.10.93 of the Kerala High
F Court in O.P. No. 8575 of 1984-J.
            Joseph Vellappally and M.P. Vinod for the Appellant.

            G. Prakash for the Respondents.

G           The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

            SEN, J. Leave granted.

            This case arises out of an order of rectification of mistake apparent
     on the face of record under Section 36 of the Kerala Agricultural Income
H Tax Act. The Section, as it stood at the material time, was as under :
      POOTHUNDU PLANTATIONS PVT. LTD. v. AGRJCUL1URALJNCOMETAXOFPICER[SEN, J.j   . 569


         "36. Rectification of mistake : (1) The authority which passed an               A
         order on appeal or revision may at any time within three years
         from the date of such order passed by him on appeal or i.n revision,
         and the Agricultural Income Tax Officer may at any time within
         three years from the date of any assessment or refund order passed
         by him, of his own motion, rectify any mistake apparent from the
                                                                                         B
         record of the appeal, revision, assessment or refund, as the case
         may be, and shall within the like period rectify any such mistake
         which has been brought to his notice by an assessee :


                                                                                         c
      The short question in this case is whether an Agricultural Income
Tax Officer can rectify the order passed by his predecessor in office, on
the ground that the assessment order was passed by wrongly construing
Section 12 of the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act. Section 12 before
its amendment stood as under :
                                                                                         D
         "12. Ca11ying f01ward of loss : where any person sustains a loss in
         agricultural income in any year the Joss shall be carried forward
         to the following year and set off against the agricultural income
         for-that year and if it cannot be wholly so set off, the amount of
         loss not so set off, shall be carried forward to the following year E
         and so on, but no loss shall be carried forward for more than six
         years."

      There can be no doubt that only an apparent error of fact or law can
be rectified by an officer. If the mistake of law has to be established by
construing the words of a section to find its proper meaning, then such an               F
error cannot normally be a rectifiable error under Section 36. If two views
are possible, then obviously the error will not be an error apparent from
the record.

     It is, however, well-settled that if the Supreme Court has construed G
the meaning of a section, then any decision to the contrary given by any
other authority must be held to be erroneous and such error must be
treated as an error apparent on the record.

       In the instant case, on the strength of the decisions of this Court in
·the case of Anglo-French Textile Company Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income H
    570                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A Tax Madras, (1953) 23 !TR 82, the Assistant Appellate Commissioner took
    the view that his predecessor had committed an apparent error of law in
    allowing carry forward of losses in the computation of agricultural income
    tax under the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act. The question is whether
    Section 12 of the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act must be interpreted
B   in the manner in which this Court has interpreted Section 24 of the Indian
    Income Tax Act. This is not an easy question to answer. In fact, the learned
    Single Judge before whom this question was raised in the writ petition
    before the Kerala High Court referred the question to a larger Bench for
    decision. This very fact goes to show that this was not a rectifiable.error
    apparent on the record of the case. The learned Single Judge of the Kerala
C   High Court felt that the question should be examined by a larger Bench.

            Moreover, Section 24 of the Indian Income Tax Act and Section 12
    of the Kerala agricultural Income Tax Act are not identically worded. Even
    if it can be established by a long process of reasoning that the ll)eaning of
D   the two sections is the same, the alleged mistake committed by the Agricul-
    tural Income Tax Officer cannot be treated as a mistake apparent on the
    record.

           Section 24 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 provided for setting
    off of losses incurred under one head against income computed under any
E   other head. Under Section 6 of the Indian Income Tax Act, income had to
    be computed undcr·various heads. If an assessee incurred loss under one
    head, he was entitled to set it off against income computed under any other
    head. If the entire loss could not be set off in any year, the balance, if any,
    had to be carried forward to the next year. It was held by this Court in the
F   case of A11glo-Fre11ch Textile Company Ltd. (supra) that before any question
    of set off could arise, there must be (1) a loss under one or more of the
    heads mentioned in Section 6 and (2) income, profit or gain _under some
    other head.

          The case of the assessee before us in that the ratio of this judgment
G   cannot possibly apply to the Kerala Act on the ground that the Kerala Act
    was concerned with only one head of income (agricultural income). Here,
    there is no question of setting off of any loss. arising out of any head against
    any in'come under another head. The scope of the two Acts and the content
    of the two sections are materially different. The judgment of the Supreme
H   Court rendered under the provisions of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922
       POOTHUNDU PLA!\'TATIONS PVT. LTD., .. AGRICUL1URAL INCOME TAX OFFICER [SEN, J.J   571

could not straightaway be applied to an assessment made under Kerala                           A
Agricultural Income Tax Act.

      We are of the view that there is considerable force in the contention
of the assessee. If any error had al all been committed by the Agricultural
Income Tax Officer, it was not an error apparent on the record. The
judgment of the Supreme Court explaining the provision of Section 24 of                        B
the India Income Tax Act, 1922 cannot be applied straightaway to interpret
Section 12 of the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act. lt is not necessary
for us in this case to examine Section 12 in depth to decide the question
whether it will have to be given the same meaning as was given to Section
24 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 in the case of Anglo-French Textile                      C
Company Ltd. (supra), but suffice it to say for this case that it is not an
error of law apparent on the record.

      In that view of the matter, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and
order passed by the High Court of Kerala dated 8.10.1993 is set aside. The
impugned order of rectification passed by the Assistant Appellate Com-                         D
missioner, pursuant to the notice dated 4th August, 1984 under Kerala
Agricultural Income Tax Act, is also set aside.

       There will be no order as to costs.

R.P.                                                                     Appeal allowed.       E