9911796707
TMI Blog1978 (5) TMI 64X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nterest paid and bank charges aggregating to Rs. 24,163 and thus under the head 'Other Sources' a net loss of Rs. 2,716 was returned. The assessee claimed the maximum deduction under s. 80-L of Rs. 3,000. The ITO in the assessment completed on 9th Oct., 1974 allowed as a deduction under s. 80-L the full amount of Rs. 3,000. This income assessed after all deductions was Rs. 73,720. 3. In the asst. yr. 1974-75 the assessee filed a return showing a total income of Rs. 64,354. For this year the assessee had shown receipt of dividends of Rs. 1,278 and interest from banks of Rs. 92 aggregating to Rs. 1,370. These two amounts were included in the gross receipts under 'Other Sources' of Rs. 9,068 but again the assessee claimed deduction for inter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f under s. 80-L. It would appear that thereafter the Department preferred a second appeal to the Tribunal and while it had come up for hearing, an application under s. 154 was moved before the AAC who passed an order on 30th June, 1977 rectifying the earlier order for both the assessment years stating therein that inasmuch as the Commissioner had directed revision of the assessments in question by withdrawing the deduction allowed by the ITO under s.80-L it was open to the assessee to re-agitate the question in the grounds preferred before him. The AAC, therefore, dismissed the appeals before him on the point regarding allowance of deduction under s. 80-L by the aforesaid appellate order. This appellate order was served on the assessee on 8 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not be reasonable to hold that the assessee could not have formed an erroneous impression regarding the import of the aforesaid order. Hence though the assessee did not appeal against the aforesaid order in the first instance, inasmuch as the assessee had within a few days of the receipt of the order of the AAC under s.154 preferred the appeals now in question, we consider that the facts justify condonation of delay and admission of the appeals. We accordingly do so. 10. Having admitted the appeals, it is not necessary for us to dwell in extenso on the aspect in question. There was positive income from dividends and interest in both the years and merely because after the set off of deductions negative income as far as the income under 'O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
