9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 80X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owever, he has not made any addition on this issue. Therefore, in absence of any addition made other than the reasons for which the case was selected for scrutiny, the assessee cannot raise any ground on this issue. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed. - Shri R. K. Panda, Vice President And Ms Astha Chandra, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri Kishor B Phadke For the Department : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, VP : These are cross appeals, the first one is filed by the Revenue and the second one filed by the assessee are directed against the order dated 28.08.2023 of the CIT(A)/ NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2015-16. 2. There is a delay of 306 days in filing of the appeal by the assessee before the Tribunal, for which the assessee has filed a condonation application along with an affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay. After considering the contents of the condonation application filed along with the affidavit and after hearing the Ld. DR, the delay in filing of the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. Facts of the case in brief, are that the assessee is a firm engaged in the business of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 01,030/- 4. Order u/s 143(3) passed on 27/12/2017 is rectified u/s 154 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Issue DN/Challan accordingly. 6. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC deleted the addition by observing as under: 6. I have carefully considered the case and have gone through the records. The appellant has submitted a copy of its accounts, which is as follows: 7. It appears that there was indeed a technical mistake in treatment and nomenclature, but the moot point raised here, by the appellant, is whether such mistake could be set right u/s 154 of the Act or not. Now, Sub-section (1) of section 154 of the Act says that with a view to rectify any mistake apparent from the record, an Income-tax authority may do any one of the acts as mentioned in Clauses (a) to (d) of section 154(1) of the Act. 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 section 154 of the Act. Thus, the Section empowers the authority only to rectify apparent mistakes by amending an order passed by it or amending any intimation or deemed intimation under sub-section (1) of section 15 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt observed, 8. We may now deal with the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Jiyajeerao Cotton Mills Ltd. v. ITO (1981) 130 ITR 710. In that case, the appellant- assessee derived profits from three industries, one of which qualified for special rebate under Part-I of Schedule-1-to the Finance Act, 1965, for the assessment year 1966-67. In granting this special rebate, the Income-tax Officer computed the profits attributable to that industry without deducting development rebate granted to the appellant. The Income-tax Officer sought to rectify the mistake under section 154 of the Act by recomputing the profits by deducting the development rebate. The appellant filed a writ petition for setting aside the notice of rectification. It was held by the Calcutta High Court that since there was conflict of opinion on computation of profits of priority industry for granting tax relief which conflict was resolved by the Supreme Court later on for the subsequent assessment year 1967-68, such subsequent decision of the Supreme Court did not obliterate the conflict of opinion prior to it. It was held that, under section 154 of the Act, rectification was not permissible on debata ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave been made into appellant's total income, since - Scope of Limited Scrutiny was not covered in Complete Scrutiny - No any approval of learned PCIT was availed for extending scope of Limited Scrutiny 2. The appellant craves leave to add/alter/modify/delete/amend all / any of the grounds of appeal. 9. The Ld. DR heavily relied on the order of the Assessing Officer and submitted that this is a mistake apparent from the record and therefore, the Assessing Officer was fully justified in making the disallowance of Rs. 2,75,50,640/-. So far as the order of the CIT(A) / NFAC holding that the issue is a debatable one and therefore the proceedings u/s 154 of the Act is not justified is concerned, he submitted that as per provisions of section 35D of the Act, the assessee is eligible to claim only 1/5th of the project cost amounting to Rs. 68,87,660/- out of the total project cost of Rs. 3,44,38,300/-. Therefore, the rectification order of the Assessing Officer should be upheld and the grounds raised by the Revenue should be allowed. 10. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee on the other hand while supporting the order of the CIT(A) quashing the order passed u/s 154 submitted that the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
