9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 1118X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e facts of the case are that in case of the assessee an assessment u/s 143(2) was completed on 14.11.2007 determining the book profit u/s. 115JB at ₹ 6,48,29,629/- and NIL under normal provisions of the Act for the Asst. Year 2005-06. The book profit u/s 115JB was computed after allowing the deduction of ₹ 1,71,88,763/- which included the loss of ₹ 1,51,06,838/- relating to a firm. Since the loss of Rs. l,71,88,763/- included the loss of ₹ 1,51,06,838/- relating to the firm which could not be allowed in the hands of the company u/s 115JB, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 154 of the Act. 3. Further, the Assessing Officer noted that earlier the business was carried on by firm viz., M/s Shiv Keshav T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 12,25,660 - 2004-05 (co.) 10,68,07,528 2,59,39,704 Business loss as per above calculation ₹ 2,59,39,704/- Less: Profit of AY 2002-03 Rs. 87,50,941/- Book profit as per P L account ₹ 8,20,18,392/- Less: Deduction u/s 205(2) Lower of depreciation loss or business Loss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... int of law is not a mistake apparent from the record and the order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 154 of the IT Act is not in accordance with law. 7. After considering the submissions of the assessee and rectification order of the Assessing Officer, the CIT(A) held that the order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 154 is not in accordance with the provisions of section 154 of the IT Act and allowed the ground of appeal of the assessee by observing as under: The rectification order, the submissions of the appellant and the assessment records have been carefully considered. For convenience sake I will take up the ground on the issue of rectification u/s 154 and the legality of the order under the said section. It ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held that debatable issue is not a mistake apparent from record. 2. Grasim Industries Ltd. Vs: CIT (2009) 317 ITR 241, where It has been held that only obvious mistake can be rectified. 3. MEPCO Industries Limited Vs. CIT (2009) 319 ITR 208 (SC); held a rectifiable mistake IS a mistake which was obvious and not something which had to be established by a long drawn process of reasoning or where two opinions were possible. A decision on debatable point of law could not be treated as a mistake apparent from record. 8. Even on merits also the CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee by observing that as per the provisions of section 72A(vi) r.w.s. 47(xiii), the assessee s contention appears to be correct and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
