9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (8) TMI 57X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passing the assessment order, and despite, the Assessing Officer had made assessment without following the Supreme Court judgment and later took an action under section 154, the action is change of opinion and is not correction of mistake apparent from record and cannot be rectified by way of an action under section 154?" The assessment year is 1975-76 and the relevant accounting period is the year ended on June 30, 1974. The Assessing Officer framed an assessment order on August 3, 1979, under section 143(3) read with section 144B of the Act. He worked out the total income at Rs. nil. While granting deduction under section 80P, he allowed deduction under section 80J, development rebate and then after granting deduction under section 80P, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 989, came to the conclusion that the matter was of debatable nature and could not be rectified under section 154 of the Act. The Revenue carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal, which vide its order dated April 26, 1993, confirmed the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). It is this order which is under challenge in the present reference. Mrs. M.M. Bhatt, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant-Revenue, submitted that the Supreme Court decision would always constitute a ground for holding that the order was suffering from an apparent mistake. That this position was settled in law and in the circumstances, the order of the Tribunal was bad in law and ought to be reversed. Mr. M.J. Shah, the learne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on treating unabsorbed carried forward depreciation partaking the same character as the current depreciation cannot be extended beyond its legitimate field and will have to be confined to that purpose. The end result is, therefore, that the order of priority amongst different items like carried forward business losses of earlier years, unabsorbed development rebate of earlier years, etc., is not free from doubt. To put it differently, the position in law is not settled. In these circumstances, the reliance placed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal on the ratio of the apex court decision in the case of T.S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Brothers [1971] 82 ITR 50 is correct. A mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and paten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
