9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (4) TMI 296X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... glaring mistake on the face of the record regarding the original assessment that warrants rectification u/s 154. See T.S.Balaram, Income Tax Officer Vs. Volkart Brothers (1971 (8) TMI 3 - SUPREME Court)- Decided in favor of the assessee - Tax Case (Appeal) Nos.361 to 365 of 2005 - - - Dated:- 9-1-2012 - MR.JUSTICE D.MURUGESAN, MR.JUSTICE P.P.S.JANARTHANA RAJA, JJ. For Appellant : Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar For Respondent : M/s.Anita Sumanth J U D G M E N T P.P.S.JANARTHANA RAJA, J. The Revenue has filed the present appeals against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years from 1989-90 to 1993-94, raising the following questions of la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... who allowed the appeals holding that the issue is a debatable one and therefore, there is no mistake apparent from the record. Aggrieved by the same, the Revenue preferred appeals before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and the Tribunal also confirmed the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. As against the said order, the present appeals have been filed before this Court raising the above questions of law. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Revenue vehemently contended that the orders passed by the authorities below are without any basis and not justifiable on the ground that the assessee is not entitled for the relief under Section 80 HHA and 80 I and theref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the aggregate value of the plant and machinery do not exceed the limit as contemplated under the provisions. The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) was of the view that only total value of the plant and machinery of industrial undertaking, which manufactures or produces article should alone be considered. Therefore, for each assessment year, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) considered the break up details of the each plant and machinery and excluded certain items such as air-conditioners for office, 63 numbers of ceiling fans, value of electrical installations in branches of the company etc from the value of trading activities. After exclusion, the aggregate value of the plant and machinery relating to industrial undertaking ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustified in rectifying the order under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Further it was held that there is no patent or glaring mistake on the face of the record regarding the original assessment that warrants rectification under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The finding given by both the authorities are in conformity with the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of T.S.Balaram, Income Tax Officer Vs. Volkart Brothers and Others reported in (1971) 82 ITR 50, wherein, it has been held that a decision on a debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from the record. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal correctly followed the above principle. 6. We do not find any illegality in the order of the Income Tax Appellat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
