9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (10) TMI 27X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in confirming the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner dismissing the application for rectification under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the reassessment initiated under section 147(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is not valid in law ? " The assessment year is 1969-70. While making the original assessment, the Income-tax Officer had disallowed the benefit of section 35B claimed by the assessee in respect of an amount of Rs. 3,21,965. In appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed the benefit, Subsequently, on the basis of an audit n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) who is resident in India, has incurred after the 29th day of February, 1968, whether directly or in association with any other person, any expenditure (not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee) referred to in clause (b), he shall, subject to the provisions of this section, be allowed a deduction of a sum equal to one and one-third times the amount of such expenditure incurred during the previous year; ...... (b) The expenditure referred to in clause (a) is that incurred wholly and exclusively on (i) advertisement or publicity outside India in respect of the goods, services or facilities which the assessee deals in or provides in the course of his business; (ii) obtaining information regardi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ke apparent from the record and as such the Appellate Assistant Commissioner has ample jurisdiction to amend the order. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, however, refused to exercise the said jurisdiction wrongly. We, therefore, are of the view that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner should have amended the order and rectified the mistake. The Appellate Tribunal in confirming the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner has committed the same error. The decision of the Supreme Court in M. K. Venkatachalam, ITO v. Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. [1958] 34 ITR 143, supports this view. Since we have accepted the above contention of the counsel for the Revenue, it is unnecessary for us to consider the larger question he ra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
