9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 612X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee and help the assessee file the return. The assessee has not been able to satisfy this Court that what has been pointed out in the petition dated 22.04.1996 under Section 154 of the Act, is a mistake, which is apparent from the record. It is not a mistake which could be identified by a mere look, since there was no claim made by the assessee for deduction under Section 80-I of the Act. Thus, the decision in the case of Lakshmi Vilas Bank [2009 (12) TMI 99 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] also does not render support to the assessee. Appeal dismissed - Decided against the assessee. - Tax Case (Appeal) No.944 of 2008 - - - Dated:- 24-9-2018 - Mr. T. S. Sivagnanam And Mrs. V. Bhavani Subbaroyan JJ. For the Appellant : Mr.M.P.Senthil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 143(3), by order dated 30.03.1995. The assessment order was received by the assessee on 05.04.1995. On 22.4.1996, the assessee filed a Petition under Section 154 of the Act, contending that the assessment suffers from a mistake apparent on the face of the record and is required to be rectified. In the said petition, the assessee contended that for the assessment year 1995-96, the claim for deduction under Section 80-I of the Act was allowed by order dated 29.03.1996 and based on the said order, the assessment order dated 30.03.1995, for the assessment year 1994-95, should be rectified. It was further submitted in the said petition that the claim which was allowed by the assessing Officer under Section 80-I of the Act, for the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 668 of 2005. The Hon'ble Division Bench, while dismissing the appeals, vide judgement dated 21.2.2012, held that the re-assessment was a clear case of change of opinion. However, the merits of the matter on the questions, which were framed by the Revenue, which include the claim for deduction under Section 80-I of the Act, were not gone into and the Court held that it is unnecessary. After the Proceedings concluded before the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, the assessee sent reminders dated 20.08.2003 and 5.9.2003 stating that the petition for rectification dated 22.4.1996, filed under Section 154 of the Act, was pending. The assessing officer considered the petition and dismissed the same by order dated 17.2.2004, which wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... officer. Admittedly, the assessee is a company registered under the Companies Act, having a large turnover and teem of financial and legal experts and definitely the assessee cannot plead ignorance, nor can the assessee argue that the assessing officer should have granted the relief, which the assessee himself has not claimed in the return. Thus, in our considered view, the decision in Chokshi Metal Refinery does not render any assistance to the case of the assessee. 7.The learned counsel for the assessee relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Lakshmi Vilas Bank (reported in (2010) 329 ITR 0591) , wherein, the Hon'ble Division Bench held that the word 'record ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
