9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (7) TMI 109X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct 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 of income on 28.11.1997 disclosing an income of Rs.3,31,188/-. The gross income declared was Rs.34,92,096.87 and on this, deduction under Section 80 IA of the Income Tax Act (hereinaft ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Income Tax (Appeals). 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he full amount of deduction under both the sections without deducting earlier years' losses from the current income." 6. Heard the counsel. The issue is well settled now by Supreme Court judgment in the case of C.I.T. Vs. Kotagiri Industrial Cooperative Tea Factory Ltd. reported in 224 ITR 604, wherein it was held as follows : "Having regard to the law as laid down by this Court in Distributors (Baroda) Pvt. Ltd.'s case [1985] 155 ITR 120 and H.H. Sir Rama Varma's case [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 wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ive Ltd., relied on by the counsel for the assessee is also not relevant to the present case, as in that case, the finding was that the issue involved was a debatable one and hence it was not a subject matter for rectification under Section 154 of the Act. In the present case, the issue involved is not a debatable one and is settled by the Supreme Court judgments cited supra. While interpreting the scope of rectification under Section 154 of the Act, the Supreme Court, in the case of T.S. Balaram, Income Tax Officer, Company Circle IV, Bombay Vs. Volkart Brothers and Others, reported in 82 ITR 50, held as follows: "A mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
