9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (6) TMI 60X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... kulam, on 20th June, 1977 under s. 154 of the IT Act, 1961, determining the taxable income as Rs. 1,94,535 as against Rs. 1,81,723 determined in the original assessment made on 26th Dec., 1875 for the asst. yr.1979-71, the relevant previous year ending 31st Dec., 1969. 2. The assessee is a firm carrying on the business of processing and export of marine products. Since it did not file the retur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 83, that is to say, at 10 per cent of the cost. Thus, by his order dt. 26th Dec., 1975, he determined the taxable income as Rs. 1,81,723. Subsequently, there was an audit objection that excess depreciation had been allowed in respect of the said addition viz., Blue Bay Building and that depreciation should have been allowed only at 2 1/2 per cent. Thereupon, the ITO issued a notice to the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee preferred appeal to the AAC contending that there was no apparent mistake, that the ITO had considered the matter and granted depreciation at 10 per cent and hence resort to s.154 was not proper. The AAC did not agree. He noticed that the ITO had mentioned the rate at which depreciation had to be allowed in respect of the additional building at 2 1/2 per cent in the annexure to the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epresentative pointed out that the ITO has allowed depreciation at 10 per cent again for the asst. yr. 1971-72 in respect of the above building. 5. The departmental representative contended that an obvious mistake had been committed by the ITO in mentioning the amount of depreciation allowable as Rs.17,083 when he and specifically mentioned the rate as 2 1/2 per cent only in the annexure to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny event, the point is not free from doubt and it is to be noticed that the lower authorities had not even considered the contention of the assessee that depreciation was allowable in respect of the aforesaid asset at 10 per cent. 7. For the above reasons, we hold that there was no apparent mistake which could be rectified under s. 154. We, accordingly, cancel the order by the ITO purported to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
