9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 246X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay and we find sufficient cause has been shown for not preferring the appeal within the period of limitation. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay (IA No.GA/1/2023) is allowed and the delay of 69 days in filing the appeal is condoned. This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the 'Act' for brevity) is directed against the order dated July 12, 2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, "A" Bench, Kolkata (the Tribunal) in ITA No.8/Kol/2022 for the assessment year 2013-14. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration: (A) Whether the Learned Tribunal has committed su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... questions of law (B) and (C) are considered and an answer is arrived at, then substantial question of law (A) need not be examined. Substantial questions of law (B) and (C) are with regard to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer under Section 154 of the Act. The said provision deals with rectification of mistake. Sub-section (1) of Section 154 says that with a view to rectify any mistake apparent from the record, an Income Tax authority referred to in Section 116 may do any one of the Acts as mentioned in Clauses (a) to (d) of Section 154(1). The other Sub-sections deal with matters where the issue has been considered and decided in a proceeding by way of an appeal or revision relating to the orders referred in Sub-section(1) of Secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of least of cash loss and depreciation loss needs to be worked out and reviewed and accordingly the understanding of the Learned Assessing Officer that such loss once adjusted in earlier year is no longer available for set off is misconceived. Hence we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Learned CIT(A) in this regard. The Ground No.2 raised by the revenue is dismissed." Though the assessee relied upon the aforementioned decision, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) did not accept the same and the apepal was dismissed. The assessee carried the matter on appeal to the learned Tribunal and the Tribunal after noting the issue involved in the case and having examined the evidences and records and the income tax return of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were in accordance with law though in our opinion the High Court was not justified in going into that question. In Sathyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale [1960] 1 SCR 890, this court while spelling out the scope of the power of a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution ruled that an error which has to be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions cannot be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. A decision on a debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from the record - see Sidhramappa Andannappa Manvi v. Commissioner of Income tax [1952] 21 ITR 333 (Bom.) The power of the officers mentioned in Section 154 of the Income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
