9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (5) TMI 247X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion under s. 154 the assessability or otherwise of the amounts, which have been recorded in the accounts by way of tax credit certificate ? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the orders of the ITOs and the AAC ? 2. In this proceeding the assessment years involved are 1966-67 to 1970-71 for which the relevant years of accounts are ending on 31st March 1966, 31st March, 1967, 31st March, 1968, 31st March, 1969, 31st March, 1970 respectively. The Tribunal has recorded the following facts : The assessment order was passed on 24th December, 1970 on the basis of a duly verified return filed on 31st December, 1966. The audited statement of accounts alongwith other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 458 on account of excise duty after adjusting ₹ 8,01,375 on account of tax credit certificate and while submitting the Income Tax returns for that year, through oversight the assessee did not claim ₹ 8,01,375 being also an excise liability of the assessee which was according to the assessee, allowable as deduction. The assessee also claimed that the entire amount of the excise duty paid but not claimed by the assessee through oversight, was given that the excise duty was given at ₹ 1,92,58,458 after deduction of ₹ 8,01,375. The assessee insisted that was a mistake apparent from record which was rectifiable under s. 154 for which there was no necessity for investigation of facts nor interpretation of law. The ITO gave ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rectify the assessees own alleged oversight or omission, unless it was pointed out to him. He also noticed that the assessment records clearly indicated that the ITO did not call for the books of accounts or vouchers etc. in course of the assessment proceedings, nor the assessee did produce such papers, on their own accord. He therefore observed that the ITO had no occasion to examine the assessees books of account and vouchers as he completed the assessment on the basis of the statement and vouchers as he completed the assessment on the basis of the statement and audited accounts filed by the assessee. The ITO was of the view that he cannot agree with the assessees submission that the ITO has also made a mistake in not allowing part of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etails or those things and that the claim for gross amount of excise duty was closely linked up with adjustment on account of tax credit certificate. He observed that if the assessees contention for rectification was allowed, it would amount to allowing exemption under s. 10(28) also as the said amount had not been offered by the assessee for the purpose of taxation and the claim for exemption under s. 10(280 could not be consideration without going into the details thereof. In the circumstances the AAC concluded that the said facts remained to be investigated and such things cannot be corrected by way of rectification, relying on the decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of T. S. Balaram, ITO vs. Volkart Brothers [1971]82ITR50 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se liability in its entirety constituted an admissible deduction. The Appellate Tribunal concluded that the mistake was clear and the same could be rectified. It considered the ratio of the decision in the case of Volkart Brothers Ors. (supra). In the circumstances the Appellate Tribunal directed the ITO to pass fresh orders in the light of the observation and discussion made by the Appellate Tribunal in the present order. It clearly directed the ITO that while passing fresh orders in pursuance of its directions, the ITO will allow excise liability of the respective years in its entirety for those years and to consider the assessability or otherwise of the amounts which would have been recorded in the accounts by way of tax credit certifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was defective. The ITOs case is that the claim of the assessee was allowed on the basis of the return. There was no mistake committed by the ITO in this regard. The assessees case is that the ITO had committed a mistake because the assessment order is based on audited accounts which were erroneous. We are unable to accept this argument. The auditors had no difficulty in passing this account as they were satisfied about the way in which the account was prepared. The ITO did not examine the books of account of the assessee in course of the assessment proceeding to find out whether mistake has been committed or not by the assessee or the auditors. 6. This is not a case of glaring and obvious mistake apparent from the assessment order. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
