9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (2) TMI 124X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e ITO on the basis of the return filed by the assessee on a total income of Rs. 3,53,020. The assessee was carrying on business in Aden, which was taken over by the Government of Yemen during the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration. The assessee, after the completion of the regular assessment, filed a revision petition before the Commissioner of Income-tax. In the revision petition it was claimed that since its entire business along with the stock-in-trade at Aden was nationalised by the Government, the assessee would be entitled to a deduction of the value of the stock and also deduction under section 32(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act in regard to the depreciable assets taken over by the Government. The Commiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9(5) in the course of reassessment proceedings. A claim for a further deduction could be made by the assessee even by filing a letter before the Income-tax Officer. Though a ground was taken by the assessee before the Commissioner (Appeals) that the action of the Income-tax Officer in rejecting the return under section 139(5) was bad in law, the same was not argued in a serious manner for the above reason. It is then submitted that the order of the Commissioner was an order setting aside the entire assessment order. It would, therefore, be open to the assessee to claim a deduction, which was not there in the revision petition filed by the assessee. It is submitted that in the revision petition filed the assessee had claimed that the total i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be resurrected by the assessee by filing petition under section 264. The Commissioner set aside the order of the Income-tax Officer, in the penultimate paragraph of his order in view of the facts discussed in the preceding paragraphs. This does not give any carte blanche to the assessee to claim any deduction which was not there before the Income-tax Officer. The argument of the assessee that it had objected to the income assessed before the CIT and, therefore, it would be competent for it to claim a deduction, which was not there in the revision petition, in the set aside proceedings has merely to be stated to be rejected. The jurisdiction of the Commissioner under section 264 is of a limited nature and not as wide as that conferred on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aws of a foreign country. The context in which this expression has been used can only refer to the domestic laws. This is because the same speaks of a compulsory acquisition under any law for the time being in force. The words "compulsory acquisition" wherever they have been used in the Act refers to compulsory acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act in force in the various States of the country. It does not refer to any compulsory take-over as a result of the nationalisation by a foreign country. Again the law has been understood in common parlance as to include customs and usages having the force of law. When such is the position, the law that is referred to, unless the context requires a different treatment, can only be the domestic l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
