9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (12) TMI 74X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the facts, finding no justification for ordering fresh hearing the appeals are being decided exercising my discretion under r. 24 of the Income-tax Appellant Tribunal Rules, 1963. 2. The orders brought in appeals are all dated 5th April, 1988 passed by the CIT (A)-II. Amristsar, hereinafter referred as the CIT(A) in respect of asst. yrs. 1979-80 and 1980-81, the related orders having been passed by the IAC(a) short for IAC (Asst.), Range-II, Amristsar, under s. 154 of the IT Act, 1961. 3. Data and information regarding dates of assessments, when the proceedings under s. 154 of the Act were completed as also the relief allowed under s. 80L(1) of the Act which came to be withdrawn is given in the following graphical chart: Name of assessee Asst. year Date of asst. Order Date of order under s. 154 Disputed 80L of relief in respect intt. Received from M/s. Raj Manohar & Bros., Pathankot which was allowed in the original asst but Withdrawn under s. 1154 of the Act. Sh. Manohar Lal Mahajan 1979-80 11-3-1982 14-12-1987 2401 -do- 1980-81 29-1-1983 -do- 2645 Sh. Surjit Kumar Mahajan 1979-80 11-3-1982 -do- 2450 -do- 1980-81 29-1-1983 -do- 2640 Sh. Rakes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Punjab& Haryana High Court in which it has been held that if an order is plainly and obviously inconsistent with the specific and clear provision as amended retrospectively, there is a mistake apparent from record which can be rectified under s. 154. This view was upheld in the following judgments: (i) M.K. VENKATACHALAM vs. BOMBAY DYEING & MFG. CO. LTD. (1958) 33 ITR 143(SC). (ii) CTO vs. VENKATASHWAR OIL MILLS 1973 CTR (SC) 346 : (1973) 34 STC 660 (SC) (iii) BASPPA & BROS. vs. DEPUTY CCT (1971) 27 STC 241 (Mys) affirmed by the Supreme Court in (1975) 35 STC 1. (iv) IAC OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME-TAX vs. V.M. RAVI NAMBOORIPAT (1974) 96 ITR 73-(1974) Tax LR 520 (SC). (v) CIT vs. GIAN TALKIES (1980) Tax LR 1443-1445 (Punj). Thus the decisions of the Punjab High court and of the Supreme Court go against the appellant. In this case, a retrospective amendment was made to s. 80L, w.e.f. 1st April, 1976. The allowance of deduction under s. 80L made originally by the IAC(Asst.) was plainly and obviously inconsistent with the clear provisions of sub-s. (3) of s. 80L as inserted retrospectively. Hence, there was a mistake apparent from records. In view of the specific provision a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be allowed in respect of such income as reduced by the deduction under s. 80K." 9. In the present case, the controversy is limited to sub-s. (1) only and, therefore, it shall not be necessary to involve with sub-s. (2) though the relevance of sub-s. (3) brought retrospectively on the statute book w.e.f. 1st April, 1976 will have to be dealt which I shall do later. 10. Sub-s. (1) of s. 80L of the Act came to be enlarged marginally by the Finance Act, 1968 (19 of 1968) w.e.f. 1st April, 1969 as follows; "1. Where the gross total income of an assessee includes any income by way of dividends from an Indian company or Indian companies, there shall, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this section, be allowed, in computing the total income of the assessee, a deduction as specified hereunder namely:- (i) in a case where the amount of such dividends does not exceed five hundred rupees, the whole of such amount. (ii) in any other case, five hundred rupees." 11. The said sub-section was substantially changed and enlarged and was substituted by the Finance Act, 1970 w.e.f. 1st April, 1971 and cls. (a), (b) and (c) were inserted along with 9 sub-clauses to sub-s. ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding long term finance for industrial development in India and which is approved by the Central Government for the purposes of cl. (viii) of sub-s. (1) of s. 36; (ix) dividends from any co-operative society, there shall, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this section, be allowed, in computing the total income of the assessee, a deduction as specified hereunder, namely: (a) in a case where the amount of such income does not exceed in the aggregate three thousand rupees, the whole of such amount; and (b) in any other case, three thousand rupees." 13. At it is, the lower authorities have not looked at the history of the provisions and considered all the changes brought in relation to 80L by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984 retrospective amendment is only with regard to cl. (c) of sub-s. (1) where for the words "consisting only of", the "consisting in either case, only of" have been substituted retrospectively w.e.f. 1st April, 1972. 14. Sub-s. (3) has been inserted and a bare plain reading would show that it has not brought about any change in the related provision of sub-s. (1) of s. 80L as such but only removed certain doubts if one had any in rela ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
