9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 566X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e controversy had already been settled by this court (Rajasthan High Court) in the case of CIT v. Loonkar Tools Pvt. Ltd. - Assessee does not have right ot claim that uniformed about judgement – judgment operative form date it is pronounced - it cannot be said that as on the date of filing of the return, the issue was at all a debatable issue, so as to disentitle the Assessing Officer to make any addition on that count, while making assessment under section 143(1) (a). - 38 and 4580 of 2004 - - - Dated:- 15-2-2008 - N. P. Gupta and Deo Narayan Thanvi JJ. Sanjeev Johari for the appellant, K K. Bissa for the respondent. JUDGMENT N. P. GUPTA J.- Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The appeal, being D. B. Income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ported by the registry as barred by 310 days. 5. However, since the arguments were advanced by either side, not on the aspect of rectification of the mistake, but on the aspect of sustainability of the addition made by the Assessing Officer, while making assessment under section 143(1)(a), obviously, Appeal No. 38 of 2004 cannot be said to be having any force nor the two questions framed can be said to be arising in this appeal. This appeal, therefore, is dismissed as such. And since the arguments have been advanced, as noticed above, on the merits in Appeal No. 4580 of 2004 DR(J) instead of standing on ceremony, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned and this appeal is heard on the two substantial questions of law as framed in Appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Loonkar Tools Pvt. Ltd. [1995] 213 ITR 721; 127 CTR 77 was delivered on July 21, 1994. Thus, it was much before the date of filing of the return by the assessee that the law had been settled. This factual aspect has been discussed by the learned Tribunal while negativing the contention of the assessee, to the effect that a subsequent event cannot be made the ground for making addition under section 143(1)(a), the argument perhaps meaning, that since in Loonkar Tools Pvt. Ltd.'s case [1995] 213 ITR 721; 127 CTR 77 it had been held that the deduction is not admissible, which is a subsequent event, on the basis of which the Assessing Officer has disallowed the deduction. 7. It is contended ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an High Court had decided the controversy in Loonkar Tools Pvt. Ltd.'s case [1995] 213 ITR 721; 127 CTR 77 and, therefore, so far as the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court is concerned it no more remains a debatable issue. 11. In that view of the matter, the precise question, then arising is, as to whether the assessee is entitled to claim the issue to be a debatable issue, notwithstanding the judgment having been rendered by this court in July, 1994, on the ground, that either that the judgment was not reported in the journals before the date of filing of the return or that the assessee did not otherwise come to know about the judgment, before filing of the return? 12. In our view, no such right can be conceded to the assessee to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
