2007 (11) TMI 12

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ial to the revenue – Held that Commissioner not entitled to revise
ORDER 1. In our view at the relevant time two views were possible on the word "profits" in the proviso to Section 80 HHC (3). It is true that vide 2005 Amendment the law has been clarified with retrospective effect by insertion of the word "loss" in the new proviso. We express no opinion on the scope of the said amendment of 20 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... order passed by the Assessing Officer. Every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the Assessing Officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. For example, when the Income Tax Officer adopted one of the courses permissible in law and it has resulted in loss of revenue; or where two views are possible and the Income Tax Officer has taken one view with which the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r was passed there were two views on the word 'profit' in that Section. The problem with Section 80 HHC is that it has been amended eleven times. Different views existed on the day when the Commissioner passed the above order. Moreover the mechanics of the Section have become so complicated over the years that two views were inherently possible. Therefore, subsequent amendment in 2005 even though .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X