9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 408X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Canara (1986 (7) TMI 5 - SUPREME Court) to hold that the relief was, in the circumstances of the case, admissible. Given that this issue as to the admissibility of relief either before the benefit of Section 80-I could be granted or thereafter, was a matter which required debate and some process of reasoning, the decision in T.S. Balaram, ITO (1971 (8) TMI 3 - SUPREME Court) clearly held the field. In other words, the revenue could not legitimately contend that the view expressed by the CIT(A) given effect to by the AO in his initial order of 12.05.1995, was utterly implausible. Such being the case, the issue was debatable. Therefore, recourse to the power of rectification under Section 154 was unwarranted i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; 91,32,404/-. The Assessing Officer (AO), by his original order dated 31.01.1995 disallowed the claim. At that stage, the assessee had inter alia urged that the relief was to be given under Section 80-I after the benefit of a deduction under Section 43B of the Act. The effect of the order was to bring to tax the said amount. The assessee preferred an appeal. The CIT(A), by the order dated 29.03.1995 observed that since the claim for eligible profits would go up in computation under Section 80-I, which directed 20% of the sum claimed, in effect, the deduction would further go up by ₹ 18,26,481/-. The assessee had claimed the benefit and relied upon the ruling of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Canara Workshops (P) Ltd. 1986 (161) ITR 320. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reafter to allow the same on merit. However, at the time of giving effect to the above order of the Ld. CIT(A) on other points, claim was also allowed on this point inadvertently through oversight whereas the issue is still to be decided and for which a letter dated 03.05.1995 has already been served on the assessee on 12.05.1995 requesting them to attend and explain the point in question. The mistake being apparent on records is rectified u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act. Income of the assessee is computed as under: Income computed as per order u/s 250 dated 12.05.1995 Rs.1,50,98,00,960/- ADD: Further deduction u/s 80I still to be decided but inadvertently deducted from income in or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he AO correctly rectified the order of 12.05.1995 on 31.05.1995 since on the merits, the payments to the Cooperative Education Funds were not in the form of cess and benefit of Section 43B could not be given. 7. Learned counsel for the assessee relies upon the decision of this Court in its own case for the same assessment year in respect of some other income. In that instance too, for A.Y. 1992-93, when the assessment for subsequent year 1993-94 was taken-up, the AO felt that the order for 1992- 93 required rectification and proceeded to do so. On that occasion too, the relief with respect to Section 80-I was in question. The matter eventually travelled to this Court by way of revenue s appeal in CIT v. Krishak Bharti Cooperative Ltd. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Act. The Tribunal, by placing reliance on various decisions of the apex court and of this court has come to the conclusion, and rightly so, that since the question whether an assessee is entitled to deduction under section 80-I or not, is debatable, the relief granted under the section could not be said to be a mistake apparent from the record, within the meaning of section154 of the Act. While interpreting the scope of Section 154 of the Act, the Supreme Court in T.S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Brothers [1971] 82 ITR 50, held that a mistake apparent on the record within the meaning of Section 154 of the Act must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
