9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (5) TMI 814X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cted from ITA No.4348/M/2008 for Assessment Year 2000-01 are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of production of television serials and its telecast. The return was filed declaring a total income of ₹ 9,75,307/-. The original assessment u/s.143(3) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was completed on a total income of ₹ 10,09,23,600/- which was subsequently revised by an order giving effect to the CIT(A) s order to ₹ 2,27,26,200/-. On going through the records it was observed by the Assessing Officer that while passing order u/s.143(3), the assessee was allowed a deduction of ₹ 79,79,314/- u/s.35D of the Act. It was also observed from the details that the expenditure of ₹ 77,05,341/- allowed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ght to taxation; (iv) The CIT(A) decided in favour of the assessee holding the initiation of proceedings u/s.147 not valid. A copy of such order of the CIT(A), dated 03.05.2006, was also filed; (v) The same issue has been sought to be now rectified u/s.154; (vi) Only a mistake apparent from record can be rectified u/s.154; (vii) A change of opinion does not constitute such mistake; (viii) In the statement of facts, it has been mentioned that the Assessing Officer s notice u/s.154, dated 25.01.2007, was served on the assessee on 01.02.2007, allowing seven days time for compliance; and (ix) The assessee sought time orally and on 16.03.2007, the written submission was filed. 4. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act and after considering the assessee's submissions he dropped the proceedings initiated u/s.263 vide order dated 29.3.2005 passed u/s.263 of the Act. He also placed on record the copy of the said notice and order passed u/s.263 of the Act. He further submits that subsequently on the same issue the case was reopened u/s.147 of the Act and the Assessing Officer interalia disallowed deduction u/s.35D ₹ 77,05,341/- vide order dated 30.01.2006 passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. However on appeal the ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 15.6.2006 held that the initiation of proceedings u/s.147 is not valid. He further submits that against the said order passed by the ld. CIT(A) the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal which is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IT(A) held that initiation of proceeding u/s.147 is not valid. Thus, it is clear that it is a case of change of opinion. 9. In T.S. Balaram, ITO vs. Volkart Brothers (1971) 82 ITR 50(SC) the Hon ble Supreme Court was considering the scope of section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, made the following observations (headnote): 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 a debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from the record. 10. In Asst. CIT vs Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. (2008) 305 ITR 227(SC) the Hon ble Supreme Court has been pleas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
