9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that there was no mistake apparent from the record which the Income-tax Officer could have rectified under section 154 for the assessment years 1967-68 and 1968-69. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Scope of Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961: The Tribunal had to determine whether the Income-tax Officer (ITO) had jurisdiction to rectify assessments under section 154 to allow relief under sections 84 and 80J. Section 154 permits rectification of "any mistake apparent from the record." The Tribunal concluded that the necessary material for granting relief under section 80J was not available at the time of the original assessments. Consequently, the ITO could not be said to have made an apparent mistake that could be rectified under section 154. 2. Conditions for Relief under Sections 84 and 80J: Both sections 84 and 80J provide for deductions in respect of profits and gains from newly established industrial undertakings. Section 80J, which replaced section 84, specifies conditions such as the undertaking not being formed by splitting up or reconstruction of an existing business, not formed by transfer of used machinery or plant, and employing a certain number of workers. The Tribunal found that none of these conditions were specifically satisfied by the assessee during the original assessment proceedings. 3. Availability of Necessary Material: The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not provide the necessary particulars for computation of capital employed, which is essential for granting relief under section 80J. The ITO would have had to extract and debate the material from the information provided, which could lead to differing opinions. Thus, the Tribunal held that the material required for granting relief was not readily available on the record. 4. Obligation of the Income-tax Officer: The assessee argued that it was mandatory for the ITO to grant relief under sections 84 and 80J if the conditions were met, even if no specific claim was made. The assessee cited a 1955 circular from the Central Board of Revenue, which obligates officers to assist taxpayers in claiming reliefs. However, the Tribunal found that the ITO could not grant relief without the necessary material being explicitly available and conditions being satisfied. 5. Precedent and Judicial Interpretation: The Tribunal relied on various judicial precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in T. S. Balaram, Income-tax Officer v. Volkart Brothers, which clarified that a mistake apparent from the record must be obvious and not subject to debate. The Tribunal also considered the Allahabad High Court's decisions in Anchor Pressings (P.) Ltd. and Sharda Prasad, which held that section 154 cannot be used to introduce new facts or claims not made during the original assessment. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that there was no mistake apparent from the record that could be rectified under section 154. The necessary material for granting relief under sections 84 and 80J was not available during the original assessments, and the conditions for relief were not explicitly satisfied. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the ITO could not invoke section 154 to grant the reliefs sought by the assessee. The High Court affirmed this conclusion, answering the referred question in the affirmative, against the assessee and in favor of the revenue. The assessee was directed to pay the costs of the reference to the Commissioner.
|
