9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (4) TMI 259X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... record that the assessment was saved by limitation because of the concealment by the assessee are based on correct appreciation of evidence on record - the notice under section 271(1)(c) was issued on March 13, 1975, i.e., after the limitation for final assessment had elapsed for normal cases, therefore, it cannot be said that the Assessing Officer was satisfied on the date on which normal limitation for assessment expired that the assessee had concealed his income - 177 of 1988 - - - Dated:- 30-4-2007 - SUSHIL HARKAULI and AJAI KUMAR SINGH JJ. Shubham Agrawal for the assessee. JUDGMENT 1. The following questions have been referred in this case: "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hough the reasoning and consequently the conclusion may be mistaken on facts or on law; and where to demonstrate the mistake of fact or of law it requires a process of detailed reasoning it would not be a case of an error apparent on record capable of rectification under section 154, but would virtually amount to review of the order. 4. In the case of CIT v. Hero Cycles P. Ltd. [1997] 228 ITR 463, the Supreme Court held as follows (headnote of ITR): "Rectification under section 154 can only be made when a glaring mistake of fact or law committed by the officer passing the order becomes apparent from the record. Rectification is not possible if the question is debatable. Moreover, a point which was not examined on facts or in law c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er to question No. 2 is that the observation of the Tribunal is correct. 8. So far as the third question above is concerned, the limitation for assessment is eight years in cases where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that the assessee has concealed some income. 9. Our answer to question No. 3 is that because the notice under section 271(1)(c) was issued on March 13, 1975, i.e., after the limitation for final assessment had elapsed for normal cases, therefore, it cannot be said that the Assessing Officer was satisfied on the date on which normal limitation for assessment expired that the assessee had concealed his income. In fact it appears that it was upon actual completion of assessment, i.e., March 13, 1975, that the Assessing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
