2018 (11) TMI 871 - AT - Income Tax

Rectification of Mistake u/s 154 - deduction u/s. 80IB disallowed - Held that - AO made the assessment u/s. 143(3) and took a conscious and considered view to allow deduction u/s. 80IB of the At in respect of interest from debtors and fixed deposits with Banks; and therefore, now the same cannot be said to be mistake apparent from record; this is clear case of change of opinion; the order does not even mention the nature of amount disallowed; the order does not show any basis, reason or logic to arrive at a conclusion that deduction allowed u/s. 80IB of the Act is mistake apparent from record much less patent and glaring; the assessment order does not point any mistake of fact or application of any law. Hence, in our view there is no mistake apparent on record rectifiable u/s. 154 of the Act, therefore, we quash the orders of the authorities below and allow the deduction in dispute u/s. 80IB of the Act in respect of the interest received from debtors and on fixed deposit with banks. See CIT vs. Krishak Bharti Co-operative Ltd. 2002 (11) TMI 12 - DELHI HIGH COURT - decided in favour of assessee.

Issues involved:
1. Jurisdictional issues regarding the authority initiating and completing proceedings under section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Validity of the order under section 154 of the Act.
3. Disallowance of deduction under section 80IB of the Act in respect of interest from debtors and fixed deposits.
4. Charging of interest under sections 234D and 244A of the Act.
5. Compliance with the law and factual accuracy in the orders passed.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The jurisdictional issues raised by the appellant included challenges to the territorial jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (ACIT) and the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (JCIT) over the case. The appellant argued that the ACIT had no jurisdiction due to territorial and procedural reasons, emphasizing that the assessment order rectified by the ACIT was null and void ab-initio. The appellant contended that the observations by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) regarding concurrent jurisdiction were unfounded. The tribunal dismissed these grounds as they were not pressed by the appellant.

2. The appellant contested the validity of the order under section 154 of the Act, alleging that the ACIT and the CIT (A) failed to consider the detailed submissions made by the appellant regarding the deduction under section 80IB of the Act. The appellant argued that the provisions of section 154 applied only to apparent mistakes and not debatable issues. The tribunal noted that the AO had allowed the deduction after considering the submissions and that disallowing it later was a change of opinion rather than a mistake apparent from the record. The tribunal referred to a relevant case law to support its decision and allowed the appellant's grounds on this issue.

3. The dispute over the disallowance of deduction under section 80IB of the Act in relation to interest from debtors and fixed deposits was a key issue. The appellant contended that the deduction had been allowed in previous years and was justified based on the detailed submissions made during the assessment. The tribunal agreed with the appellant, stating that the AO's decision to disallow the deduction was not based on a mistake apparent from the record but rather a change of opinion. The tribunal quashed the orders of the authorities below and allowed the deduction in dispute.

4. The appellant raised concerns regarding the charging of interest under sections 234D and 244A of the Act, alleging that it was excessive. However, the judgment did not provide detailed analysis or resolution of this issue.

5. The overall compliance with the law and factual accuracy in the orders passed was questioned by the appellant. The tribunal carefully analyzed the facts of the case, the submissions made by the appellant, and the reasoning behind the AO's decision. Ultimately, the tribunal found in favor of the appellant, allowing the appeal and emphasizing the importance of not rectifying debatable issues under section 154 of the Act. The tribunal's decision was supported by relevant case law, highlighting the need for mistakes to be apparent and not subject to debate for rectification under section 154.

← Previous Next →