9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (11) TMI 117X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uestions of law pursuant to an order of this court passed under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Act"). " (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the. Tribunal is justified in law in setting aside the order passed by the Incometax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, when the assessee has maintained no proper a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he said deduction by way of development rebate was wrongly allowed to the assessee. He, therefore, initiated proceedings under section 154 of the Act. According to the Income-tax Officer, since the assessee had not maintained any books of account, there was no occasion on his part to create a development rebate reserve account as required under section 34(3)(a) of the Act. As such, the Income-tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the development rebate reserve under section 34(3)(a) of the Act, and (ii) the question involved being a debatable question and two views being possible, it was not a case of mistake apparent on the face of the record and, therefore, the provisions of section 154 of the Act could not have been invoked. Turning first to the second question referred to above, I am of the view that the Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not have been decided in a proceeding under section 154 of the Act. In the case of T. S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Brothers [1971] 82 ITR 50, it has been held by the Supreme Court that (at p. 53). "It was not open to the Income-tax Officer to go into the true scope of the relevant provisions of the Act in a proceeding under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. A mistake apparent on the record ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
