9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the order under section 143(3) dated 12-2-1992. 2. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to issue a notice under section 143(2) and frame a second assessment. 3. Applicability and computation of deduction under section 80HHC. 4. Applicability of sections 234A and 234B. 5. Legality of adjustments made under section 143(1)(a) and section 154. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Order Under Section 143(3) Dated 12-2-1992: The assessee argued that the order dated 12-2-1992 under section 143(3) is invalid and non-est in law. It was contended that the Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to issue a notice under section 143(2) to frame a second assessment. The Tribunal noted that the return was processed under section 143(1)(a) and later rectified under section 154. A notice under section 143(2) was subsequently issued, and the assessment was framed under section 143(3). The Tribunal held that the assessment under section 143(3) was valid and not a nullity, as the Assessing Officer was within his rights to issue such a notice and frame the assessment. 2. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to Issue a Notice Under Section 143(2): The assessee contended that the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to issue a notice under section 143(2) and frame a second assessment. The Tribunal referred to the decision in Apogee International Ltd v. Union of India, which clarified that an intimation under section 143(1)(a) does not preclude the operation of section 143(2). The Tribunal upheld that the Assessing Officer had the jurisdiction to issue a notice under section 143(2) and proceed with the assessment under section 143(3). 3. Applicability and Computation of Deduction Under Section 80HHC: The assessee challenged the quantum of deduction allowed under section 80HHC. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's claim was based on separate books of accounts for export and domestic businesses. However, the Tribunal found that the deduction should be computed under section 80HHC(3), which requires the proportion of export turnover to total turnover. The Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's computation, stating that the error was patent and justified rectification under section 154. 4. Applicability of Sections 234A and 234B: The assessee contended that sections 234A and 234B were not applicable. The Tribunal did not find merit in this contention and upheld the applicability of these sections. 5. Legality of Adjustments Made Under Section 143(1)(a) and Section 154: The assessee argued that the adjustments made under section 143(1)(a) for Rs. 19,150 were beyond the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal acknowledged that adjustments under section 143(1)(a) are limited to arithmetic errors and prima facie admissible or inadmissible items. However, the Tribunal found that the adjustment, even if erroneous, did not amount to a lack of jurisdiction or convert the processing under section 143(1)(a) to an assessment under section 143(3). The Tribunal upheld the adjustments and the subsequent rectification under section 154. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed both appeals, upholding the validity of the assessment under section 143(3), the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer, the computation of deduction under section 80HHC, and the adjustments made under sections 143(1)(a) and 154. The additional grounds of appeal were not admitted.
|
