9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (7) TMI 642X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase, the mistake as pointed out by the Ld. counsel is not apparent on the record; not obvious and patent mistake. In the instant case, the mistakes can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may be conceivably two opinions. In the instant case, the mistakes pointed out by the Ld counsel are rather debatable. Thus the ratio laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Volkart Bros [ 1971 (8) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT] is squarely applicable here. In view of the above factual scenario and position of law, we uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A). - ITA No. 923/MUM/2019 - - - Dated:- 17-7-2020 - Shri Amarjit Singh (Judicial Member) And Shri N.K. Pradhan (Accountant Member) For the Assessee : Mr. Dharm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 93/- [being 30% of the total as the asset was put to use on 30/09/2009]. The application was made u/s 154 for consequential effect of the depreciation to be given @60% on the opening WDV of software, which was rejected by the AO and confirmed by CIT(A). 3. Briefly stated, the facts are that the assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year (AY) 2011-12 on 29.09.2011 declaring total income of Rs. Nil and book profit of ₹ 1,04,78,511/-. The assessment u/s 143(3)/115JB was completed by the Assessing Officer (AO) on 15.03.2014, arriving at total income of ₹ 87,67,320/-. Thereafter, the assessee filed in application u/s 154 on 01.08.2017 stating that (i) during the relevant year, the company had sold a fixed asset on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder of the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). We find that vide order dated 06.12.2018, the Ld. CIT(A) by relying on the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Volkart Brothers 82 ITR 50 (SC), dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 5. Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submits that during the impugned assessment year the appellant had sold a fixed asset on which a profit of ₹ 11,97,269/- had arisen on account of sale of the show-room. It is explained that as per the provisions of the Act, the block of asset of the office premises had not ceased to exist and accordingly the provisions of section 50 were not applicable in terms of tax liability on STCG and therefore, the said amount was requi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtmental Representative (DR) referring to the decision in CIT v. Titaghar Paper Mills Co. Ltd . (1992) 62 TAXMAN 40 (Cal), CIT v. Sandeep Bipinchandra (1986) 27 TAXMAN 562 (Guj.) and Raja Hari Chand Raj Singh (1978) 114 ITR 727 (All.) submits that the disputed issues herein are not mistakes apparent from record and therefore, not rectifiable u/s 154 of the Act. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. The reasons for our decisions are given below. The power of rectification u/s 154 of the Act can be exercised only if there is a mistake apparent from the record of the assessment of the assessee. In other words, in order to attract the power to rectify u/s 154, it is not sufficient, if ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... matter, we must deal with one procedural issue as well. While hearing of these appeals was concluded on 30.01.2020, this order thereon is being pronounced today, much after the expiry of 90 days from the date of conclusion of hearing. We are also alive to the fact that rule 34(5) of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules 1963, which deals with pronouncement of orders. Let us in this light revert to the prevailing situation in the country. On 24th March, 2020, Hon'ble Prime Minister of India took the bold step of imposing a nationwide lockdown, for 21 days, to prevent the spread of Covid-19 epidemic, and this lockdown was extended from time to time. As a matter of fact, even before this formal nationwide lockdown, the functioning of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... extended accordingly , and also observed that arrangement continued by an order dated 26th March 2020 till 30th April 2020 shall continue further till 15th June 2020 . The Hon ble Bombay High Court itself has, vide judgment dated 15th April 2020, held that while calculating the time for disposal of matters made timebound by this Court, the period for which the order dated 26th March 2020 continues to operate shall be added and time shall stand extended accordingly . Viewed thus, the exception to 90 day time limit for pronouncement of orders inherent in Rule 34(5)(c) clearly comes into play in the present case. 9. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced under rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
