9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (2) TMI 161X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h, 1977. The said order of the ld. AAC was not appealed against by the assessee and, thus, the same was allowed to become final. Subsequently, the ITO initiated action under s. 154 of the IT Act, 1961, in respect of the asst. yr. 1974-75 because certain items which were inadmissible by their very nature had been wrongly allowed to the assessee in the original assessee and, therefore, it was sought to rectify the said mistake in the original assessment by resorting to provisions of s. 154. In respect of the asst. yr. 1975-76 the ITO filet that interest under s. 215 of the IT Act, 1961, should have been charge but had unfortunately been not charged even though, according to him, a direction to that effect had been given by the ITO. After issu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ma in terms of s. 10 (26) is sought to be supported by these cross objections. In respect of the asst. yr. 1975-76 it was additionally argued on behalf of the assessee that the direction to charge interest under s. 215 of the IT Act, 1961 could not be given through the orders under s. 154 and that the ITO had wrongly mentioned in his order under s. 154 that the ITO had originally directed to charge interest under/s. 215 of the IT Act, 1961. In fact no such direction had been given. This factual positions not denied by the assessee. 4. After taking into account the submissions made by either sides, we are of the opinion that the ld. AAC had no jurisdiction whatsoever to entertain the ground of appeal regarding the exemption in terms of sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der/s. (26) of s. 10 of the IT Act, 1961. His predecessor had taken a view in the subject matter and simply because the said view has not been accepted by the Tribunal in another case, it cannot be said that the mistake was one about which debate was not passable. We understand that the Tribunal s order relied upon by the assessee is pending before their Lordships of the Hon ble Gauhati High Court under/sub-s. (2) of s. 256 of the IT Act, 1961. Apart from it, the Tribunal s order on a question of law cannot be said to be a final order which can be given effect to by rectification under s. 154. Therefore, the ld. AAC even if he wanted to act suo motu could not have passed the rectification order on his own. 6. The ld. counsel for the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngth of the specific language of sub-s. (1A) of s. 154 of the IT. Act, 1961. There is, therefore, no merit in the cross objections of the assessee on this point. On merits, the order of the ITO was not challenged in the cross objection. 8. In respect of the asst. yr. 1975-76 the assessee s contention that the ITO had not directed to charge interest under/s. 15 of the It act, 1961, in the original assessment is found to be correct. As such, we uphold the cross objections of the assessee in respect of this year. The ITO could not have directed the charging of interest under s. 215 of the IT Act, 1961. The assessee has relied for his submissions on the subject on the following authorities: (1) S. A. L. Narayan Raw Anr. vs. Ishwarlal Bhag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
