9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that it was mandatory for the Income-tax Officer to allow deduction under section 35B even though the assessee did not claim such deduction in the returns or during the assessment proceedings. 2. Whether there was material on record justifying the Tribunal's finding that there was an obvious mistake which could be rectified under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Mandatory Allowance of Deduction under Section 35B: The Tribunal held that the Income-tax Officer was under an obligation to allow the deduction under section 35B even though the assessee did not claim it in the returns. The Tribunal's rationale was that certain allowances or deductions, such as depreciation and development rebate, must be considered by the Income-tax Officer while assessing business income, regardless of whether they were claimed by the assessee. The Tribunal asserted that the Department's allowance of 100% of the export expenses indicated acknowledgment of the expenses being incurred for business purposes, thus constituting an "obvious and apparent mistake" rectifiable under section 154. However, the High Court found that the Tribunal misdirected itself in law. The Supreme Court's judgment in Anchor Pressings (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1986] 161 ITR 159 was cited, which clarified that while the Income-tax Officer has an obligation to grant reliefs, this is contingent upon the presence of clear data in the assessment record. The High Court emphasized that the record must contain precise factual material to enable the Income-tax Officer to discharge his obligation to grant relief under section 35B. The High Court concluded that the Tribunal's approach was incorrect as it did not ensure that the conditions specified in section 35B were satisfied. 2. Rectification of Obvious Mistake under Section 154: The assessee filed applications under section 154 to rectify the omission of the weighted deduction under section 35B for the assessment years 1969-70 to 1972-73. The Income-tax Officer rejected these applications, stating that no such deduction was claimed in the returns and the mistake pointed out did not attract the power of rectification under section 154. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner supported this view, noting that no claim was made in the returns for two years, an interpolation was found for the third year, and the claim was made at an inappropriate place for the fourth year. Additionally, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner found that the expenditure claimed did not meet the criteria specified in clause (b) of section 35B(1). The High Court agreed with the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's findings, stating that the Tribunal failed to specify the sub-clause under which the expenditure in question fell to qualify for the weighted deduction. The High Court noted that the Tribunal's assumption that "export markets development allowance" automatically qualifies for deduction was incorrect. The High Court emphasized that each sub-clause of clause (b) of section 35B(1) sets out specific conditions that must be satisfied for the deduction to be allowed. The Tribunal should have examined whether the material on record satisfied the requirements of any sub-clause of clause (b) of section 35B(1). Conclusion: The High Court answered both questions in the negative, in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee. The Tribunal was directed to re-examine the case in light of the Supreme Court's decision, considering whether the material on record satisfies the requirements of any sub-clause of clause (b) of section 35B(1). If the conditions are met, the Tribunal may direct the grant of the relief claimed; otherwise, the claim for weighted deduction fails. The reference was answered accordingly, with no costs awarded.
|
