9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (8) TMI 277 - HC - Income TaxExclusion of the Fixed Deposit Receipts in the business profit for granting deduction u/s 80HHC -Miscellaneous Petition - Held that - Provision of applicability of Explanation (baa) to Section 80HHC(4A)was brought in as effective from 1.4.1992 and applicable to the assessment year under consideration - the nexus between the business activity of the assessee and the receipt of interest was established and that they formed part of the profits of the business. - the assessee would be entitled to treat it as deductible and to be included in the business income for the purpose of Explanation (baa) to Section 80HHC(4A). Apex Court in ACIT vs. Vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. (2008 (9) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT) held that the Tribunal was justified in correcting its mistake in exercise of its jurisdiction u/s 254(2) as a patent manifest and self-evident error which does not require elaborate discussion of evidence or arguments to establish it can be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record and can be corrected while exercising certiorari jurisdiction.
Issues:
1. Application of amended provision of law in assessment order. 2. Includability of Fixed Deposit Receipts in business profit for deduction under Section 80HHC. 3. Relevance of Explanation (baa) to Section 80HHC(4A) in assessing deduction. 4. Tribunal's rejection of Miscellaneous Petition by the Revenue. 5. Correctness of Tribunal's decision based on jurisdictional Court's ruling. 6. Jurisdiction under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act for correcting errors. Analysis: 1. The main issue in this case revolves around the application of the amended provision of law in the assessment order for the assessment year 1992-93. The question raised is whether the omission of the amended provision, specifically Explanation (baa) to Section 80HHC(4A), in the assessment order can be considered an error/mistake and corrected under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act. 2. The case also deals with the includability of Fixed Deposit Receipts in business profit for granting deduction under Section 80HHC. The Tribunal initially granted relief to the assessee based on a previous decision, but the Revenue raised concerns about the applicability of Explanation (baa) to Section 80HHC(4A) for the assessment year in question. 3. The Assessing Officer had originally included 90% of the interest received in the profits and gains of the business for calculating deduction under Section 80HHC, based on Explanation (baa) to Section 80HHC(4A). 4. The Revenue filed a Miscellaneous Petition before the Tribunal, which was rejected, leading to the filing of the present Tax Case Appeal. The Tribunal's rejection was based on the view that considering the applicability of the provisions under Explanation (baa) to Section 80HHC(4A) would amount to a review of the order. 5. The High Court highlighted the importance of correctly applying the relevant provision of law for the assessment year under consideration. Referring to a previous decision, the Court emphasized the need to rectify mistakes that are apparent on the face of the record under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act. 6. The Court cited a case where the Apex Court clarified the scope of rectification under Section 254(2), stating that errors apparent on the face of the record are those that do not require extensive discussion or extraneous matters to establish their incorrectness. Applying this principle, the Court held that the failure to follow the correct provision of law warranted correction under Section 254(2). 7. In conclusion, the Tax Case Appeal was allowed, and the Tribunal's order was set aside. The matter was remitted to the Tribunal for reconsideration in accordance with the correct provision of law relevant to the assessment year under consideration. No costs were awarded in this decision.
|
