9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 870X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4,33,473/- under Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessment was completed on 28.03.2005 wherein the Assessing Officer did not allow the deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 while computing the income under Section 115JB. There was, according to the Assessing Officer, no provision to allow the deduction under Section 80HHC while computing the Book Profits of the Assessee. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in challenge to the order of the Assessing Officer directed him to compute the deduction under Section 80HHC and not under the normal provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer allowed the deduction under Section 80HHC with reference to the profit as per the accounts, while determining the book profits. The Assessing Officer noticed subsequently that the Assessee had reduced 90% of the rent income while computing the deduction under Section 80HHC on the Book Profits, but no deduction was made in respect of other income such as interest, profit and sale of investment, etc.. That is how by mistake, the excess deduction was given to the Assessee under Section 80HHC. Therefore, an order under Section 154 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is noted by the Assessing Officer and the Tribunal as well. For all these reasons the Appeal should be admitted, is the submission of Mr.Gupta. 7. Mr.Mistry, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Assessee, submitted that the Tribunal has merely corrected a mistake or error and which was apparent on the face of record. The facts have been noted by the Tribunal. A limited aspect of the matter was as to whether, while giving effect to the order and direction of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) could the Assessing Officer have gone beyond it and undertaken the exercise as is now supported. Precisely this what the Tribunal found and that in a limited jurisdiction and when the Commissioner's order has attained finality the Assessing Officer could not have done so. This order of the Tribunal is in the facts and circumstances peculiar to the Assessee. It is the Assessee's case which resulted in the directions as noted by the Tribunal and issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). While giving effect to and implementing that order the Assessing Officer could not have gone beyond it and raised an issue particularly that the Assessee Company has reduced 90% of the rent i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... how the order under Section 154 was passed and which corrected an apparent mistake according to the Revenue. It is this stand of the Assessing Officer and which was supported by the Revenue and opposed by the Assessee which has been noted in the impugned order. The Tribunal in paragraph 5 of the order under challenge refers to the stand of the Assessee, namely, if the direction to compute the deduction under Section 80HHC in accordance with the accounts of the Assessee for determining the book profits was specific and that direction was duly complied with by the Assessing Officer while giving effect to the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), then, there was no mistake in the said order warranting any rectification under Section 154. This rectification was pertaining to the issue or matter which was highly debatable and beyond Section 154. It is this argument and which has been dealt with in paragraph 7. Paragraph 7 of the Tribunal's order reads thus: "7. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material on record. It is observed that while disposing of the appeal of the Assessee filed before him for the assessment year 1999- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under the provisions of the I.T. Act, in any case, was highly debatable issue at the relevant time and rectification on the said issue was beyond the scope of Section 154. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the impugned order of the learned CIT (A) in deleting the adjustment made by the Assessing Officer on this issue to the book profit of the revenue's by passing rectification order u/s 154 of the Act and uphold the same on this issue. Accordingly, we dismiss ground No.1 of the Revenue's Appeal." 10. From perusal thereof what one finds is that the Tribunal essentially referred to the order of the Appellate Authority, namely, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 24.03.2003. That pertained to the Assessment Year 1999-2000. Under that the Assessing Officer was directed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to compute the deduction under Section 80HHC for the purpose of determining the book profit under Section 115JA only with reference to the profit as per accounts and not to restrict the same with the amount computed and allowed under the normal provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This direction was not initially followed by the Assessing Officer, but he la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
