9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 793X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by a long process of reasoning on points on which there may be conceivable two different opinions and hence, it is a debatable issue. It was not a mistake apparent from record. Hence, rectification is not possible since in this case, the issue was taken up by the Assessing Officer in the proceedings u/s. 154 of the Act dated 03/06/2008 which is a debatable issue. AO is not justified in rectifying the mistake vide the impugned order. Accordingly, we quash the rectification order passed u/s. 154 . - decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. No.138/Coch/2017 - - - Dated:- 16-1-2019 - SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, AM AND GEORGE GEORGE K., JM For The Assessee : Shri Rajeev R., CA For The Revenue : Smt. A.S. Bindhu, Sr. DR ORDER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aintained for the year under consideration as well. 4. On appeal, the CIT(A) observed that the Assessing Officer, by virtue of section 154 of the Act, can rectify any mistake apparent from the record. If it is a mistake which requires to be established by a complicated process of investigation, argument or proof it cannot be regarded as a mistake apparent from the record. The CIT(A) observed that after giving effect to the ITAT order vide order dated 14.03.2007, the entire income was exempted from tax by the Assessing Officer without considering the fact that no separate sets of books of account so as to quantify the receipts from non-members and TMBT's had been maintained by the assessee. According to the CIT(A), the mistake inadver ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was the order sought to be amended, the CIT(A) held that the rectification order passed on 03.06.2008 was within the prescribed time limit and hence, dismissed this ground. 5. Against this, the assessee is in appeal before us. The contention of the Ld. AR is that the rectification order passed u/s. 154 of the Act is illegal and should be quashed as there is no mistake apparent from record. 6. On the other hand, the Ld. DR relied on the order of the CIT(A). 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. Originally, the Assessing Officer passed the order on 14/03/2007 giving effect to the order of the ITAT, Cochin Bench in ITA No. 285/Coch/2003 dated 05/03/2004 wherein he had given deduction as follows: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sing officer. Therefore, there is no need of any estimation for these two assessment years as far as taxable receipts are concerned. 7.3 Contrary to this, the ld. DR made the submission that in the assessment years prior to the assessment year 1997-98, the Club did not maintain separate accounts for the receipts from members/non members and in those assessments, 50% of the receipts were treated as exempt, as the receipts from non members were not discernible. Therefore, the treatment of exempted 50% of taxable receipts was a mistake. Since the order dated 14/03/2007 was an order giving effect to the Tribunal order dated 05/03/2004, the mistake is also apparent from record. This contention of the Ld. DR cannot be accepted as it is a de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
