9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1248X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aram, Income Tax Officer, Company Circle IV. Bombay Vs. Volkart Brothers and others [1971 (8) TMI 3 - SUPREME Court] - A mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may be conceivably two opinions. A decision on debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from the record – Decided against Revenue. - Income Tax Application Defective No. - 13 of 1997 - - - Dated:- 25-9-2012 - Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani And Hon'ble Aditya Nath Mittal,JJ. For the Petitioner : B. Agarwal,A. Kumar,A.N. Mahajan,D. Awasthi,G. Krishna,P. Krishna,S. Chopra For the Respondent : R. S. Agarwal ORDER 1. We have heard Sri Sha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ount of liability towards PF Trust a/c and ESI payable at Rs.2,24,097/- and Rs.10,611/-, which are covered under 2nd proviso to Sec. 43-B and not under 1st proviso?" 3. Brief facts giving rise to this application, as given in the statement of fact, are as follows:- "Original assessment in this case was completed under Section 143 (3) on 24.03.1986, determining the income at a loss. Later on the assessment was revised under section 263 on 2.1.1987, on an income of Rs. 99,62,760/-. Subsequently it was observed that the following liabilities outstanding on the last day of a/c period were not allowable under Section 43-B of the I.T. Act, and after issuing notice u/s 154 to the assessee, the assessment was revised u/s 154 on 6.3.1989, on tot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of India and others in 189 ITR 81. Ld. ITAT, Delhi have in the case of M/s. Indochem Laboratories, Meerut in A.Y. 1985-86 allowed department's reference vide their order dated 25.7.1996 in R.A. No. 312/Del/95. In the case of PF Trust Act and ESI payable shown at Rs.2,24,097 and Rs.10,616/-, it is ambiguously clear that deduction was admissible only in the year of payment. The same are covered under the second proviso to Sec. 43-B and not under first proviso." 4. We find that the doubts, if any, were clarified, and put to rest in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Allied Motors (P) Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax [(1997) ITR 677] (SC), in which it was held that:- "first proviso to Section 43-B and Explanation 2 have to be read to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e deductions, except dues of PF, are covered under Section 43-B of the Act and thus the first proviso to Section 43-B, with retrospective effect will apply. The dues of PF are also covered by second proviso to Section 45-B which was in force in the relevant assessment year i.e. 1984-85. 7. In T.S. Balaram, Income Tax Officer, Company Circle IV. Bombay Vs. Volkart Brothers and others [(1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC), the Supreme Court in proceeding arises out of application for rectification under Section 154 , held as follows: "A mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may be conceivably two opinions. A decision on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
