TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 534X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal – following the decision in Commissioner of Income Tax. Versus Smt. Aruna Luthra [2001 (8) TMI 84 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA High Court] with regard to rectification of mistake apparent on record, assessee has not been able to show any illegality or perversity in the order of the Tribunal – thus, no substantial question of law arises for consideration – Decided against assessee. - ITA No. 27 of 2014 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 15-9-2014 - Ajay Kumar Mittal And Fateh Deep Singh,JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Pankaj Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Divya Suri and Mr. Sachin Bhardwaj ORDER 1. The delay in refiling the appeal is condoned. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant assessee under Sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... correctly claimed or not. Assessment under Section 143 (3) of the Act was completed on 17.12.2004, Annexure A.2 at an amount of ₹ 57,87,108/-. Notice under Section 154 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 11.3.2008, Annexure A.3 on the ground that there was mistake apparent on record since deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act was not allowed correctly as according to section 80IA(9) of the Act, deduction allowable under section 80IB of the Act was allowed to be reduced from the profit of business for computing deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act. Order under Section 154 of the Act was passed on 22.5.2008, Annexure A.4 determining taxable income at an amount of ₹ 71,51,394/- whereby deduction under Section 80HHC of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 154 of the Act. Support was drawn from Apex Court decision in Deva Metal Powders (P) Limited vs. Commissioner Trade, Tax (Uttar Pradesh), 2008(2) SCC 439. 7. Full Bench of this Court in CIT vs. Smt. Aruna Luthra (2001) 252 ITR 76 has considered the parameters for rectifying an order in the following terms:- The power given to the authority is wide. It can correct any mistake provided it is apparent from the record The first question that arises for consideration is when a mistake can be said to be apparent from the record? The plain language of the provision suggests that the mistake should be apparent. It must be patent. It must appear ex facie from the record. It must not be a mere possible view. The issue should not be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pretation of a provision, an authority can take a view in favour of one of the parties. Subsequent to the order, the jurisdictional High Court or their Lordships of the Supreme Court interpret the same provision and take a contrary view. The apparent effect of the judgment interpreting the provision is that the view taken by the authority is rendered erroneous. It is not in conformity with the provision of the statute. Thus, there is a mistake. Should it still be perpetuated? If the contention raised on behalf of the assessee were accepted, the result would be that even though the order of the authority is contrary to the law declared by the highest court in the State or the country, still the mistake could not be rectified for the reason t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
