9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: The judgment involves the question of whether the Income-tax Officer was justified in proceeding u/s 154 of the Income-tax Act to disallow the deduction made in respect of Rasoi expenses, which were not admissible for deduction based on a previous decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
Details of the Judgment: 1. Assessment Year 1975-76: The assessee, a registered firm, claimed a deduction for Rasoi expenses during the relevant year. The Income-tax Officer disallowed a portion of the claimed amount but later realized an error in allowing the remaining amount based on a previous court decision. The Income-tax Officer issued a notice u/s 154 to rectify the assessment order, which the assessee objected to, citing decisions of other High Courts on similar matters. 2. Appeals and Tribunal's Decision: The assessee's appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was dismissed, leading to a further appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal acknowledged the binding nature of the previous court decision within its jurisdiction but also noted conflicting views from other High Courts. It concluded that since there were differing opinions on the issue, the provisions of section 154 were not applicable for rectification, and the Income-tax Officer was not justified in disallowing the deduction. 3. Legal Precedents: The judgment referred to past cases like CIT v. East India Cold Storage and CIT v. Vardhman Spinning to highlight the criteria for rectification under section 154. It emphasized that a mistake apparent from the record should not involve debatable issues, and a settled view of the court should prevail over conflicting opinions from other jurisdictions. 4. Court's Opinion and Decision: The High Court opined that the Tribunal erred in not considering the definite opinion of the Punjab and Haryana High Court on Rasoi expenses. It emphasized that the assessing authority must adhere to the binding opinion within its jurisdiction, and the existence of conflicting views from other High Courts does not negate the mistake apparent on the face of the record. Consequently, the court answered the referred question in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee. In conclusion, the judgment reaffirmed the importance of following the binding decisions within a specific jurisdiction and clarified that conflicting views from other jurisdictions do not invalidate a mistake apparent from the record for the purpose of rectification under section 154 of the Income-tax Act.
|
