9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (8) TMI 342X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble benefit of set off of capital gains as pointed out by the Assessing Officer. Since there was no mistake apparent on the face of the record, the Tribunal has confirmed the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) whereby the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 154 of the Act was cancelled. – order of ITAT maintained. - 1484 of 2006 - - - Dated:- 5-8-2008 - K. A. PUJ and BANKIM N. MEHTA JJ. JUDGMENT Tax Appeal No. Mrs. Mauna M. Bhatt for the appellant. Manish J. Shah for the respondent. The judgment of the court was delivered by K. A. Puj J. - The Revenue has filed this tax appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1997-98 proposing to formulate th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessing Officer has disallowed and added a claim of Rs. 1,93,983 and again allowed short-term capital gains offered by the assessee under section 50 of the Act to the tune of Rs. 1,38,422. On this basis, the Assessing Officer passed an order of rectification under section 154 of the Act. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that there is no case of double benefit of set off and, hence, there is no mistake which required rectification. On further appeal, the Appellate Tribunal upheld the said order. It is contended on behalf of the Revenue that the Appellate Tribunal has overlooked that there was granting of dual benefit which was an error apparent on the record. The same could be rectified under section 154 of the Act. The Appellat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 154 in an arbitrary manner. The Tribunal has also given its finding that there is no case of double benefit of set off of capital gains as pointed out by the Assessing Officer. Since there was no mistake apparent on the face of the record, the Tribunal has confirmed the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) whereby the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 154 of the Act was cancelled. We are, therefore, of the view that the Tribunal was right in confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) holding that the addition of Rs. 1,38,422 made on account of short-term capital gains by resorting to rectification of the order under section 154 of the Act was invalid. Question (B) is, therefore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
