9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (4) TMI 71X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is was duly allowed by the ITO. Subsequently by a letter dt. 12th March, 1977 the assessee claimed a further relief of Rs. 6,97,463. It was pointed out to the ITO that the capital employed in the industrial undertaking should have been taken as on the 1st day of year and not as on 31st March, 1973, which was the last date of the accounting year. The ITO accepted this request and by order dt. 31st March, 1978 allowed a further relief of Rs. 6,97,463. 2. The records of the Department were subsequently checked by the internal audit party. The audit party pointed out to the ITO that in the year under appeal, there was no import of tractors in semi-knocked condition resulting in the virtual closure of its assembly workshop. In other words, it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Act. It was next contented that even on factual basis, the assessee was entitled to the relief for the entire year and could not be restricted to a period of the year. Both these contention were accepted by the CIT(A). He finally cancelled the order of the ITO passed under s. 154 of the Act. 4. Against the above order of the CIT(A), the Department has filed present appeal. The ld. Departmental Representative referring to s. 80J(1) of the Act, submitted before us that the required relief could not be allowed only as a deduction from the profits and gains derived from an industrial undertaking. He submitted that the industrial undertaking in the year under appeal was confined to the assembly of 300 tractors and, therefore, the profit at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such case before him. 5. On behalf of the assessee, the ld. counsel Shri H.G. Agrawal strongly supported the order of the CIT(A). He did not dispute the principle as contained in Ashok Motors Ltd. vs. CIT. His submission on the other hand, was different. He contended that the ITO has presumed that only Rs. 4,79,155 could be held to be the profit derived from the industrial undertaking, which presumption, according to him, was incorrect. He contended that there was nothing to show that a higher profit or the entire profit was not attributable to the industrial undertaking. He objected to the ITO's estimate of the profit attributable to the industrial undertaking on proportionate basis. His submission was that in the present case where th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on record to show what amount of profit could be attributed to the industrial undertaking and whether the industrial undertaking was confined to the assembly of 300 tractors and not to any other activity of assessee. Well, these are all complicated matters requiring long drawn process of reasoning and, therefore, outside the scope of s. 154 of the Act in view of the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in T.S. Balaram vs. ITO, Volkart Bros. Ors. (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC). It was held in this case that a mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something, which could be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may be conceivably two opinions. A decision on debatable poin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
