TMI Blog1991 (11) TMI 87X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see on the following grounds: (1) Stock of R.B.D. Palm oil had been understated to the extent of 116 MT the value being Rs. 8,91,498. (2) Investment allowance to the extent of Rs. 1,34,853 had been wrongly allowed on Weighing Machine (Manavadar Unit), Electrical installation and Weigh Bridge (Madhapur Unit) (3) Investment allowance on the following items had also been wrongly allowed: (i) Machinery Pipe Line 1,32,406 (ii) Refinery structure 1,16,801 (iii) Oil structure 24,866 (4) Extra Shift depreciation in case of Weigh Bridge had been wrongly allowed. (5) Depreciation on weighing machine was allowable at 10 per cent but had been wrongly allowed at 15 per cent. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Weighing Machine-Rs. 8,878 and the excess depreciation on Weighing Machine-Rs. 860. In any case these two items have not been even raised during the course of the hearing of the present appeals and we need not detain ourselves any further. 4. The learned counsel for the assessee at the outset stated that there was no basis for the Assessing Officer either in law or on facts of the case in taking action under s. 154 since all relevant information had been furnished to the Assessing Officer at the time of the assessment proceedings. He invited our attention to the fact that the order passed by the Assessing Officer under s. 143(3) after making detailed inquires had been subsequently approved by the IAC under s. 144B. A reference was also m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid item came under the definition of "plant" within the meaning of s. 43(3) were highly debatable issues and outside the purview of s. 154 which dealt with mistakes apparent from record or apparent mistakes of law and not involving any devious process of investigation. According to him, it was not open to the ITO in proceedings under s. 154 to go into the scope or true provisions of a section and the question whether investment allowance was allowable or not on a particular item could not be examined unless such an interpretation of the section was made by the Assessing Officer. In support of the aforesaid arguments he placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of ITO vs. Volkart Bros. Ors. (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC). ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the learned counsel has also been examined and the decisions cited at the bar duly considered. In our opinion the Assessing Officer exceeded his jurisdiction in invoking the provisions of s. 154 vis-a-vis the items which form the subject matter of the grounds of appeal. This becomes apparent from the fact that whereas in the notice under s. 154 he had indicated a difference in the closing stock vis-a-vis R.B.D. Palm Oil to the extent of 116 MT the CIT(A) arrived at a difference of 32.058 MT only and that also by a detailed process of investigation and looking into the relevant facts. Then again the questions whether a particular item comes under the definition "plant" within the meaning of s. 43(3) and furthermore whether investment allow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|