9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (12) TMI 72X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for half year and that it was entitled to relief for the entire years as per the decisions of the Karnataka and Madras High Courts In CIT v. Mysore Petro-Chemicals Ltd. [1984] 145 ITR 416 and CIT v. Simpson Co. [1980] 122 ITR 283 and as per the Circular of the CBDT dated 3-3-1984 in No. 378. The ITO by his order dated 16-11-1984 turned down the assessee's prayer observing that the said point had become final as per the appellate order and could be said to have merged in the appellate order and so it could not be permitted to be reopened because an interpretation had been given in a different way. Aggrieved by the order of the ITO under section 154, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT (Appeals). 3. The CIT (Appeals) held tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee's claim and upheld the action of the ITO. The assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT (Appeals). The computation of capital employed was agitated before the Tribunal as can be seen from ground Nos. 4 to 7 in the grounds of appeal filed before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by its order dated 11-4-1985 in IT Appeal No. 1378 (Cal.) of 1983 held that the question of deductibility of borrowed moneys and debts due could not be considered in view of the Supreme Court's decision in Lohia Machines Ltd. v. Union of India [1985] 152 ITR 308. Thus, it would be seen that the issue in the appeals before the CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal earlier in respect of 80J claim of the assessee related only to the point ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5. The arguments of the Departmental Representative were to the following effect : The computation of relief under section 80J was considered in its entirety by the ITO as well as the appellate authorities, namely, the CIT (Appeals) and ITAT. Hence, the ITO's order on this matter got merged with the appellate orders. So, the ITO cannot amend his order as per section 154(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 6. We have considered the matter. The Circular of the CBDT No. 378, dated 3-3-1984 was long after the date of the assessment order i.e., 27-8-1982. So, the assessee cannot charge the ITO that he had not followed the circular. The assessee further says that there was a mistake apparent from the record, namely, the assessment order, in not fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ectify any mistake in an order passed by him even where such order has been considered and decided in any proceeding by way of appeal or revision except where the mistake relates to matters which had been so considered and decided. In this case, the matter of relief under section 80J had already been considered by the appellate authorities by their orders dated 8-4-1983 and 11-4-1985. By the time the assessee preferred petition under section 154 dated 16-7-1984, the ITO's order on the point of section 80J relief got merged in the CIT (Appeals)'s order dated 8-4-1983. The matter of section 80J relief has got several aspects--capital employed, quantum of deduction on the basis of period of working, when the Unit began to manufacture or produc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
