9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 636X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... after considering the decision in TS Balaram, Income-Tax Officer, Company Circle IV, Bombay Versus Volkart Brothers And Others [1971 (8) TMI 3 - SUPREME Court] it has to be held that the Tribunal and the CIT(A) have committed an error in upholding the rectification made by the AO - A decision on a debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent on the record - after the implementation of order passed by CIT(A), it was not appropriate on the part of AO to review the earlier order under the guise of rectification and in arriving at new facts and new order could not be passed unless order of CIT(A) was challenged or modified – thus, the order of the Tribunal and the rectification order passed by the AO is set aside – Decided in favour of ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the Assessing Officer noted a mistake apparent in the order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act and accordingly the A.O reduced the subsidy from the eligible expenditure. 3.1 Thereafter vide order dated 31.03.1990 passed u/s 154 of the Act, the weighted deduction was withdrawn. Subsequently, CIT(A) passed order dated 15.03.1991 in respect of appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by A.O u/s 143(3) of the Act. In consequence of the appellate order of CIT(A) the A.O passed order dated 10.07.1991 and computed the qualifying amount for 100% deduction and qualifying amount eligible for 30% of the deduction. 3.2 The Assessing Officer thereafter after considering the submission of the assessee took the view that a mistake had occur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e been quashed and set aside by the Tribunal. He has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of T.S. Balaram, Income Tax Officer, Circle IV, Bombay vs. Volkart Brothers and Others reported in [1971] 82 ITR 50. 5. The Apex Court in the case of Vokart Brothers (supra) has held as under: From what has been said above, it is clear that the question whether S.17(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 was applicable to the case of the first respondent is not free from doubt.Therefore the Income-tax Officer was not justified in thinking that on that question there can be no two opinions.It was not open to the Income-tax Officer to go into the true scope of the relevant provisions of the Act in a proceeding under S.1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... apparent from the record of the assessments of the first respondent. 6. Considering the above decision, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal and the CIT(A) have committed an error in upholding the rectification made by the Assessing Officer. A decision on a debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent on the record. After the implementation of order passed by CIT(A), it was not appropriate on the part of Assessing Officer to review the earlier order under the guise of rectification and in arriving at new facts and new order could not be passed unless order of CIT(A) was challenged or modified. The Tribunal has materially erred in upholding the erroneous finding of fact by CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer and the findings are not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
