9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 350X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... powers u/s 154 of the Act has not manifested from order u/s 154. Thus, both the lower authorities erred in rectifying the assessment order on the basis of case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. [ 2022 (10) TMI 617 - SUPREME COURT] . As contended that once the issue is decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court against an assessee, the action on the part of AO in invoking section 154 of the Act rectifying the mistake in wrongly granting the benefit to assessee in the original assessment order could always be withdrawn. The assessee submitted that the law laid down in N.C. Budharaja Co. case [ 1993 (9) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT] was prospective in nature, therefore, the same would not apply to this case because, on the date when AO granted relief to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the facts of the case are that the assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dt. 25/12/2019 wherein the returned Nil income was assessed as Nil income. 3.1. Subsequently, on perusal of Form 3CD report, the AO found that the employees contribution to provident fund and ESI fund were not paid before the due date. According to the AO since the mistake was apparent from the records, invoking the provisions of Section 154 of the Act and drawing support from the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT reported in [2022] 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC), the AO rectified the alleged mistake apparent from record and made addition of Rs. 2,76,953/-. 3.2. The assessee carried the matter before t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vs. Mahavir Drilling Co. reported in 273 ITR 201 (MP), investment allowance claimed by the assessee on drilling machines was granted by the AO. The AO later realized that the investment allowance could not have been claimed by the assessee on the drilling machine or in other words, it was noticed that the same was wrongly granted. However, by order dated 19/10/1992, the AO withdrew the benefit of investment allowance by taking recourse to the provisions of rectification. The revenue submitted that in the light of law laid down by Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. N. C. Budharaja Co. [1993] 70 Taxman 312/204 ITR 412 the issue in relation to claiming of investment allowance in the activity of drilling stood decided in favour of revenue. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
