9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the ITO in invoking provision of s. 154 of the IT Act for computing relief under s. 90M of the IT Act. Analysis: The case involved the assessment years 1977-78 and 1978-79 where deduction under s. 80M was allowed initially. However, the provision of s. 80M was amended retrospectively by Finance (No. 2) Act, 1980. The ITO then rectified the assessment orders under s. 154 of the IT Act, treating the deduction under s. 80M as a mistake apparent from the record. The assessee objected, leading to an appeal before the CIT(A) who accepted the contention that the deduction under s. 80M was debatable. The Tribunal, on appeal by the Revenue, upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the estimate of expenses for earning dividends was a deductible matter outside the purview of s. 154. The Tribunal emphasized that there was no mistake apparent from the record that could be rectified under s. 154, as the exact amount of expenses was not available in the original assessment order. The High Court emphasized that for a mistake to be rectified under s. 154, it must be apparent from the record, explicitly present in the order itself. In this case, the ITO had to estimate expenses for earning dividends, which was not based on available records but on the ITO's own estimate. The Court referred to a previous judgment where it was held that the law amended retrospectively could be applied to correct an error apparent on the face of the record under s. 154. However, in the absence of a clear mistake in the original order, s. 154 could not be invoked. The Court agreed with the Tribunal's decision that there was no mistake apparent from the record in this case, and hence, the Tribunal's view was correct. The question of law was answered in favor of the assessee, and no costs were awarded. In conclusion, the judgment dealt with the jurisdiction of the ITO in rectifying assessments under s. 154 of the IT Act, specifically in the context of an amendment to the tax provision. It clarified that for a mistake to be rectified under s. 154, it must be apparent from the record itself, and estimates or deductions based on factors outside the existing records do not fall within the purview of rectification. The decision emphasized the importance of clear errors in the original order for rectification under s. 154, ensuring that the provision is applied within its intended scope.
|
