9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (7) TMI 109X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bench raising the following substantialquestions of law. "1. Whether the Tribunal is correct in concluding that the order of rectification passed by the Respondent in restricting the quantum of deduction under section 80 IA of the Act upon taking into consideration the unabsorbed losses is sustainable on facts and in law? 2. Whether the Tribunal is correct in concluding that there was no debate in understanding and interpreting the provisions of section 80 IA of the Act, especially with reference to the computation part of the said section?" 2. The brief facts leading to the above questions of law are as under: 3. The relevant assessment year is 1997-98 and the corresponding accounting year ended on 31.03.1997. The assessee filed return ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeals). The C.I.T. (A) dismissed the appeal by following the Supreme Court Judgment reported in 224 ITR 604 in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kotagiri Industrial Co-Operative Tea Factory Ltd. and confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved by the order of the first appellate authority, the assessee filed an appeal to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal"). The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee by following the Supreme Court judgments reported in 155 ITR 120 and 224 ITR 604, thus confirming the order of the lower authority. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the issue involved is not a mistake apparent on the face of the record and it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e [1994] 205 ITR 433, it must be held that before considering the matter of deduction under section 80P(2), the Income-tax Officer had rightly set off the carried forward losses of the earlier years in accordance with section 72 of the Act and on finding that the said losses exceeded the income, he rightly did not allow any deduction under section 80P(2) and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner as well as the Tribunal and the High Court were in error in taking a contrary view. The principle of statutory construction invoked by Mrs. Ramachandran has no application in construing the expression "gross total income" in sub-section(1) of section 80P. In view of the express provision defining the said expression in section 80B (5) for the purpos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is not a mistake apparent from the record." 8. From a reading of the above Supreme Court observation, it is clear that only apparent mistake and non-debatable issue, would be the subject matter of rectification under Section 154 of the Act. As in this case, the order sought to be rectified is not in confirmity with the law declared by the Supreme Court cited supra, which amounts to mistake apparent on the face of the record. Hence, the action of Assessing Officer in rectifying the order under Section 154 of the Act, is perfectly justified. 9. In view of the foregoing reasons, we are of the view that the order of the Tribunal is in confirmity with law and there is no error or infirmity in the order of the Tribunal and the same requires no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
