9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (7) TMI 30X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . NANAVATI J.-The following question is referred to this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the grant of relief under section 80L having exhausted the availability of deduction under section 86(v), the Income-tax Officer was not competent to rectify the mistake by passing an app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder passed by him on September 12, 1974. He was of the view that as deduction was allowed under section 80L, no rebate of Rs. 1,167 was admissible under section 86(v) of the Act. The assessee gave his written submissions and objected to the proposed action. The Income-tax Officer, however, thought it fit to rectify the said order and withdrew the deduction allowed under section 86(v). Therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ort the second rectification order passed by the Income-tax Officer on the ground that granting of deduction being a mistake apparent on the record, it was open to the Income-tax Officer to initiate proceedings under section 154 of the Act. In our opinion, this contention raised on behalf of the Revenue cannot be accepted. As regards what can be regarded as a mistake apparent on the record, the Su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a mistake apparent on the record. The Income-tax Officer was, therefore, not justified in again initiating proceedings under section 154 and rectifying the first rectification order passed by him. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal were right in taking the view that the Income-tax Officer was not justified in doing so. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us in the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
