9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 277X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble and to be included in the business income for the purpose of Explanation (baa) to Section 80HHC(4A). Apex Court in ACIT vs. Vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. (2008 (9) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT) held that the Tribunal was justified in correcting its mistake in exercise of its jurisdiction u/s 254(2) as a patent, manifest and self-evident error which does not require elaborate discussion of evidence or arguments to establish it, can be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record and can be corrected while exercising certiorari jurisdiction. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was brought in as effective from 1.4.1992, applicable to the assessment year under consideration. The Tribunal, however, rejected the said Miscellaneous Petition, taking the view that since the decision in the appeal is made based on the decision of this Court, the filing of a miscellaneous petition would amount to review of the order and the question raised was not raised before the Tribunal. Thus the Miscellaneous Petition was rejected by the Tribunal. Aggrieved by this, the present Tax Case Appeal has been filed by the Revenue. 3. It is seen from the papers placed before this Court that the Assessing Officer originally applied Explanation (baa) of Section 80HHC(4A) and 90% of the interest received included in the profits and gains of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the claim of the assessee for deduction could only rest on the provision of law relevant to the assessment year under consideration. In this connection, the decision reported in [2008] 305 ITR 227 (Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd.), relied on by the Revenue, merits to be noted herein. The Apex Court pointed out that the assessee filed a Miscellaneous Petition before the Tribunal under Section 254(2) for correcting the errors committed by the Tribunal in the decision rendered, in the name of exemption made by the assessee, a charitable institution. The Tribunal allowed the application, holding that there was a mistake apparent from the records. Thus, the High Court recalled its earlier order. O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Tribunal was justified in correcting its mistake in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 254(2). Applying the said decision to the case on hand, we hold that the failure to follow the correct provision of law, which is apparent, warrant an exercise of jurisdiction under Section 254(2). Thus, setting aside the order of the Tribunal in the Miscellaneous Petition in M.P.No.45(Mds)/2004 vide order dated 11.07.2005, we remit the matter to the Tribunal to pass orders in accordance with law, taking into consideration the correct provision of law relevant to the assessment year under consideration. 8. With the above observation, the Tax Case Appeal stands allowed and the Tribunal's order is set aside. The appeal is restored to the files ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
