9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (1) TMI 355X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mehta, for the respondent. JUDGMENT 1. These are four matters, closely interconnected with each other. Appeals No.47/2002, 48/2002 and 63/2004 are by the Revenue, seeking to challenge the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, upholding the acceptance of the application of the assessee, filed under Section 154 of the Income tax Act, while Civil Writ, being No.2568/1993, is by the assessee. 2. First of all, we take up the appeals of the Revenue. 3. The three appeals relate to the different assessment years, inasmuch as the Appeal No.47/2002 relates to assessment year 1991-92, the Appeal No.48/2002 relates to assessment year 1992-93 and Appeal No.63/2004 relates to assessment year 1993-94. 4. The Income-tax Appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tually earned, and not on any hypothetical income, and since the action under Section 143(1)(a) attracted liability on hypothetical income, it is an error apparent on the face of the record. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) considered the matter threadbare, and found, that the controversy arose on account of change in law, and that, there is no doubt, that on this issue, there can be more than one view, and therefore, anything that involves a doubt, could not be proceeded under Section 143(1)(a), and having so proceeded, it would amount to error apparent on the face of the record. Accordingly, the application under Section 154 was allowed. Then the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, in appeal by the Revenue, again consi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10. At the outset, it may be observed, that learned counsel for the revenue was asked, as to what has been the ultimate status of the judgment in SBBJ's case (supra), substantially on which basis, the impugned orders have been passed, but the learned counsel could not satisfy, that the said judgment does not hold good, any more. 11. That being the position, since that judgment proceeds substantially on four judgments of the Supreme Court, which, in our view also, are on all the fours, on the controversy involved in the present case, it can not be said that the learned tribunal committed any error in dismissing the appeals of the revenue. So far as Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank's case is concerned, that case also does not help the cause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation under Section 154, and the same was rightly allowed by the CIT, as well as the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. 13. Since, out of three appeals, substantial question of law has been framed only in Appeal No.63/2004 and not in other two appeals, however, instead of standing to ceremony, we have considered the questions in all the three appeals, and in our view, for the conclusions arrived-at as above, the question, framed, vide order dated 10.11.2004, in Appeal No.63, is answered against the Revenue, and in favour of the assessee, and the order of the Tribunal, in all the three appeals, is upheld. 14. In view of the above, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed. 15. Now we take up the writ petition filed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
